Gujarat High Court High Court

Banaskantha vs Purabhai on 30 November, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Banaskantha vs Purabhai on 30 November, 2010
Author: D.H.Waghela,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/2144/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2144 of 2010
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3610 of 2010
 

With


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 10435 of 2010
 

In
 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2144 of 2010
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

BANASKANTHA
DISTRICT PANCHAYAT - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

PURABHAI
MULABHAI BHANGI - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
HS MUNSHAW for
Appellant(s) : 1, 
MR SP MAJMUDAR for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR
KUNTAL A JOSHI for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
		
	

 

Date
: 30/11/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)

1. By
way of the present appeal, the appellant has sought to challenge oral
order dated 08.04.2010 of learned single Judge of this Court in SCA
No.3610 of 2010, whereby petition of the appellant was dismissed;
with the result that award dated 11.12.2009 in Reference (LCP)
No.263 of 1996 of Labour Court, Palanpur was required to be
implemented. According to that award, the respondent is required to
be paid 30% of back-wages from the date of termination of his
service to the date on which he would have retired.

2. Learned
counsel Mr.Munshaw, appearing for the appellant, submitted that the
appellant were not in possession of the date of birth of the
respondent and hence it was not possible for them to calculate the
amount required to be paid to the respondent towards back-wages in
terms of the award. Otherwise, there was no reason to interfere with
the findings of fact recorded by Labour Court and upheld by learned
single Judge. In fact, though the petition of the appellant was
styled as one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, it
really called into question the award of Labour Court, which was made
in exercise of the power of adjudication conferred upon the Court.

3. In
the above facts, learned counsel Mr.Kuntal Joshi, appearing with
learned counsel Mr.S.P.Majmudar for the respondent, submitted that he
will supply to the appellant the correct or approximate date of birth
of the respondent along with proof in support of such date for the
purpose of calculation of back-wages @ 30% and request the
appellant to properly calculate the amount of back-wages so as to
avoid any further litigation. Accepting that statement, learned
counsel Mr.Munshaw, appearing for the appellant, fairly stated that
the appellant shall, within one month of receipt of the date of birth
of the respondent, calculate and pay to the respondent total amount
due to him, without raising any unnecessary issues. Recording that
consensus, the appeal as well as the civil application are disposed
as rejected.

Sd/-

(
D.H.Waghela, J.)

Sd/-

(J.C.Upadhyaya,J.)

(KMG
Thilake)

   

Top