Gujarat High Court High Court

Botad vs Bhartiben on 9 November, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Botad vs Bhartiben on 9 November, 2011
Author: M.R. Shah,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/13863/2010	 2/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

 


 

 


 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13863 of 2010
 

 


 

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

 

BOTAD
MUNICIPALITY - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

BHARTIBEN
TAPUBHAI VAGHELA - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
PREMAL R JOSHI for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 

 
 


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 21/10/2010 

 

 
 


 

ORAL
ORDER

By
way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or
direction quashing and setting aside the impugned judgement and
order dtd.19/4/2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in
Complaint (IT) No.8 of 2005 in Reference (IT) No.137 of 1998, filed
under sec.33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Having
heard Mr.Joshi, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and considering the impugned judgement
and order, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner
is not in a position to dispute that there is no breach of sec.33 of
the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also an admitted position that at
the time when the services of the respondent workman was terminated
in the year 1999, substantive reference being Reference (IT) No.137
of 1998 was pending and without seeking any approval, the services
of the respondent workman was terminated by the petitioner
w.e.f. 10/1/1999.

The
only submission made on behalf of the petitioner
employer is that though the services of the respondent
workman were terminated in the year 1999, she filed the complaint in
the year 2005.

So
far as the aforesaid aspect is concerned, it is to be noted that
the tribunal has considered the aforesaid aspect and considering the
same, the respondent has been denied back wages

Considering
the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and more
particularly when admittedly there is breach of sec.33 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, no case is made out to interfere with
the impugned order in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.

In
view of the above, there is no substance in the present petition,
which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No
costs.

[M.R.

SHAH, J.]

rafik

   

Top