Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10253/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10253 of 2008
=========================================================
ASTRO
OPTICAL INDUSTRIES NOW ASTRO OPTICS PVT. LTD., - Petitioner(s)
Versus
KISHANBHAI
ZINABHAI VARLI - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HASMUKH THAKKER for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR PALAK H THAKKAR for Petitioner(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 11/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. Mr.
Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the
workman earlier remained absent in 1995 and thereafter, in response
to the notice regarding his absence, he had tendered his apology
after explaining that his absence was because of health problem. Mr.
Thakkar, learned advocate further submitted that during the period
from April, 1996 to March, 1997, the respondent again remained
absent.
2. The
petitioner has not given any detail about the date on which the
respondent remained absent during the aforesaid period nor any
material to establish his alleged absence appears to have been
produced before the learned Labour Court. Except said letter dated
10.5.1997, no other material or evidence appears to have been
produced before the learned Labour Court to establish the alleged
absenteeism of the respondent during the aforesaid period. Mr.
Thakkar, learned advocate tried to rely upon the cross-examination of
the respondent to demonstrate that the respondent had admitted his
absence, however, said cross-examination does not refer to any date
or period of absence and that therefore, it is not possible to
co-relate the so called admission with the details mentioned in the
letter dated 10.5.1997.
3. It
is not in dispute that no inquiry was conducted about the alleged
absence of the respondent and that the retrenchment compensation was
not paid. Thus, it appears that even if the allegation of absenteeism
is presumed to be true, then also respondent’s termination was
without complying with the procedure of law.
4. Considering
this aspect, the learned Labour Court has held the termination
illegal and passed direction for reinstatement with continuity of
service. Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate submitted that the petitioner
is not challenging the direction regarding reinstatement and the
petitioner is ready and willing to reinstate the petitioner. He
submitted that the petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the direction
regarding backwages.
5. Hence,
in view of the aforesaid submission made by Mr. Thakkar, learned
advocate, issue NOTICE returnable on 22.8.2008 on
condition that the petitioner shall reinstate the respondent, with
continuity of service on or before 20.8.2008.
(K.M.THAKER,
J.)
ynvyas
Top