Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12747/2000 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12747 of 2000
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 ?
======================================
GUJARAT
METAL BOX - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MANJUSHREE
ARUN NANDODE - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance
:
MR KV GADHIA for Petitioner(s)
: 1,
MR TR MISHRA for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 19/07/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. The
petitioner has challenged the judgement and award dated 14th
October 1996 and the order dated 27th March 2000 whereby
the delay condonation of application came to be dismissed.
2. The
respondent workman was working with the petitioner firm. The
respondent was served with a show cause notice for his negligence
behaviour. After due procedure his service came to be terminated on
13th May 1987. The respondent raised a dispute which
culminated in Reference LCA No.1716 of 1987. According to the
petitioner the notice issued by the Labour Court was misplaced and
could not remain present before the Court. In the meantime the
company was closed in the year 1993.An exparte award came to be filed
on 14th October 1996. On coming to know about the same the
petitioner filed Misc. Application No.214 of 1997 along with an
application praying for condonation of delay below Exh.4. The said
application came to be rejected against which the present petition is
filed.
3. The
delay was only 39 days and the petitioner has explained the delay. If
the delay is condoned at the most that can happen is hearing the
matter on merits. Therefore in the ordinary course after condoning
the delay the matter could have been remanded. However, it is stated
that the respondent workman has died on 5th August 2005
and the petitioner company is already closed. In that view of the
matter no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.
4. Therefore
the impugned order dated 27th March 2000 is quashed and
set aside and the Misc. Application No.214 of 1997 is allowed and
with the consent of the parties learned advocates are heard on the
merits of the judgement and award of the Labour Court.
5. Since
the respondent workman has already died, now there is no question of
reinstatement. Therefore interest of justice would be met by passing
the following order:
“The
respondent workman is deemed to have been continued in service till
he died on 5th August 2005 and therefore he shall be paid
his salary from 1st November 1996 to 5th August
2005. The payment thereof will be made within a period of six weeks
from today. ”
The
judgement and award impugned is modified accordingly.
6. Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
ar
Top