Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9690/2004 1/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9690 of 2004
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
DISTRICT
PANCHAYAT SURENDRANAGAR & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DHANIBEN
LABHUBHAI - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
SEJAL K MANDAVIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 26/08/2010
ORAL JUDGMENT
By
way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated
13.2.2004 of the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No.7
of 1999 whereby the Labour Court has granted reinstatement with 25%
backwages.
2. The
respondent filed the reference before the Labour Court stating that
she is working as daily wager since last 13 years and she has been
terminated without following the procedure prescribed under Section
25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The case of the petitioners is
that the respondent has never worked for 240 days in a year and,
therefore, the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not
applicable. Still the Labour Court has directed reinstatement with
25% backwages. Hence, this petition.
3. This
Court, while admitting the petition on 10.8.2004 has stayed only
backwages and directed that the respondent be reinstated in service
within a period of two weeks. In that view of the matter, the only
question now left out for consideration is payment of 25% backwages.
4. The
Labour Court has referred to Sections 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H), but
regarding backwages, no reasons are given. Therefore, order of the
Labour Court granting backwages is required to be quashed and set
aside.
5. In
the result, the petition is partly allowed. The award dated 13.2.2004
of the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No.7 of 1999
so far as it relates to backwages is quashed and set aside. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.)
zgs/-
Top