Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1323/2004 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1323 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 ?
=========================================================
DIVISIONAL
CONTROLLER - Petitioner(s)
Versus
RATILAL
ARJANBHAI VACHHANI - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MS
SEJAL K MANDAVIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR MUKESH
H. RATHOD & MR GK RATHOD for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 04/08/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the order passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in Recovery
Application No.55/1991 dated 22.07.2003, whereby, the said
application filed u/s.33(C)2 of the I.D. Act by the respondent was
allowed and the petitioner-Corporation was directed to pay an amount
of Rs.11,312.40 to the respondent.
2. The
facts in brief are that the respondent was appointed as a ‘temporary
worker’ by the petitioner-Corporation. The respondent filed Recovery
Application No.55/1991 before the Labour Court, Junagadh claiming
wages for the period from 01.07.1989 to 21.03.1990. The Labour Court,
after hearing both the sides and after considering the evidence on
record, allowed the said application. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. Before the Court below, the respondent had produced
documentary evidence, vide Exs.13 to 24, in order to show that he had
rendered services with the petitioner-Corporation. Further, from his
cross-examination, it was established that the petitioner had not
paid the outstanding wages to him and had, thereby, had not followed
the time-scale.
4. Looking
to the facts of the case and the evidence on record, I am of the view
that the Court below was completely justified in allowing the
application of the respondent. I am in complete agreement with the
reasonings given by the Court below in the impugned order and hence,
find no reasons to interfere with the same. Even otherwise, looking
to the smallness of the amount involved, this Court does not find it
fit to disburse the order passed by the Court below.
5. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. The payment to be released
within a period of two months from today.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top