Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9695/2010 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9695 of 2010
=========================================================
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
JALUBHAI
KODARBHAI BHOI - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
CM SHAH, LD.ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 23/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
By
way of present petition, the petitioners has inter alia prayed for
quashing and setting aside the common judgment and award dated 21st
December 2009 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (LCG)
No.186 of 1995, whereby the Labour Court has rejected the Reference
of the petitioners.
It
is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was working as a
Rojamdar with the petitioners. Since there was no work, he was
retrenched by the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said action,
the respondent raised an industrial dispute by way of Reference
(LCG) No.186 of 1995, which ultimately came to be partly allowed in
favour of the respondent.
Ms.C.M.
Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has submitted that the
Labour Court has erred in holding that the petitioner has not
complied with provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947; that the petitioner-Department came into existence in the
year 1987 and so the claim of the respondent is not true and
correct; that the respondent had not completed 240 days of service;
that there is a delay of 10 years in raising the industrial dispute.
Hence, the impugned judgment and award is required to be quashed
and set aside.
Having
considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the documentary evidence produced on record as well
as the averments made in the petition, it transpires that the Labour
Court after appreciating the pros and cons of the matter has arrived
at the conclusion. The Labour Court has rightly considered the
documentary evidence produced on record and granted only
reinstatement without continuity of service as well a without
backwages to the respondent. It is pertinent to note that since the
Reference was made after a period almost ten years, the Labour Court
has not granted any continuity of service and backwages to the
respondent.
In
view of aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the
Labour Court is just and proper. The Labour Court has assigned
cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at the conclusion. I do
not find any illegality much less any perversity in the findings
recorded by the Labour Court. No case is made out to interfere with
the findings recorded by the Labour Court. Hence, present petition
deserves to be dismissed.
For
the foregoing reasons, the present petition fails and is,
accordingly, dismissed summarily.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top