Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/16381/2003 2/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16381 of 2003
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
CHAIRMAN
/ MANAGER - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UMESHKUMAR
RADHESHYAM BRAHMBHATT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KV GADHIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 01/10/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
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
order
dtd.8/10/2003 passed by
the Appellate Industrial Court, Nadiad in Appeal (ICN) No.9 of
2002, by which the appellate court has partly allowed the said
appeal directing the petitioner herein to reinstate
the respondent workman as a Clerk with continuity of service but
without back-wages or other monetary benefits.
Though
served nobody appears on behalf of the respondent workman.
It
appears from the affidavit filed by the petitioner
dtd.179/2008 that the respondent shall not be interested in the
present litigation, as he is already working in the Income
Department and is gainfully employed and he might not be interested
in appointment as a Clerk in the petitioner Bank.
Having
heard Mr.Gadhia, learned
advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and
considering the judgement and order dtd.31/7/2001 passed by the
Labour Court, Nadiad in T-Application No.9 of 1992 as well as the
order dtd. 8/10/2003
passed by the Appellate Industrial Court, Nadiad in Appeal (ICN)
No.9 of 2002, it appears that the appointment of the respondent as a
Clerk was a training, initially for a period of six months, which
was extended for a further period of six months and that thereafter
on completion of training period, he was relieved.
Considering
the above the case squarely falls within sec.2(oo)(bb) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Under the circumstances, the
Industrial Court has materially erred in allowing the appeal
preferred by the respondent workman and directing the petitioner
employer to reinstate the respondent workman on the
post of Clerk with continuity of service.
In
view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition
succeeds. The impugned order
dtd.8/10/2003 passed by the Appellate Industrial Court, Nadiad in
Appeal (ICN) No.9 of 2002 is hereby quashed and set aside and the
judgement and order
dtd.31/7/2001 passed by the Labour Court, Nadiad in T-Application
No.9 of 1992
is hereby restored. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order
as to costs.
[M.R.
SHAH, J.]
rafik
Top