Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9071/2000 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9071 of 2000
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5861 of 2001
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5863 of 2001
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5862 of 2001
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5860 of 2001
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 ?
=========================================================
JAMNAGAR
MUNICIPAL CORPN - Petitioner(s)
Versus
HARKATANT
J JANI & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
JR NANAVATI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR GM JOSHI
for Respondent(s) : 1.2.1 - 2,2.2.2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 12/07/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. The
petitioners in these petitions have challenged the judgement and
award passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot by a common judgement passed
in Reference (LCR) Nos.789 to 795 of 1983 whereby the concerned
workmen were directed to be reinstated in service along with back
wages.
2. The
concerned workman had raised disputes which were referred to Labour
Court, Rajkot for adjudication. The petitioner did not appear before
the Labour Court as a result of which exparte award came to be
passed. The petitioner therefore filed applications for setting aside
the ex parte awards. The concerned workmen filed recovery
applications. The Labour Court, Jamnagar rejected the applications
of the petitioner and allowed the recovery applications. It is
against those orders that the present petitions have been filed.
3. Learned
Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the representative of the
petitioner had remained on all the dates of hearing earlier and had
also sought time for filing reply. He submitted that on 6th
October 1986 Bar Association had declared holiday and the matter was
adjourned to 10th November 1986 and thereafter the matter
was not listed. He submitted that on 1st January 1987
exparte order came to be passed which is illegal and arbitrary.
4. However,
the finding of the Labour Court is that none appeared for the
petitioner nor have they taken any steps to defend the case.
Therefore it was not established that there was any retrenchment
whatsoever. As per the say of the petitioner is that after 10th
November 1986 the matter was not listed. It is required to be noted
that the reference is of the year 1983 and the same was renumbered in
the year 1990. But the petitioner has not produced any documentary
evidence on record to show that the petitioner has filed reply
immediately after the service. Even after 10th November
1986 enough time was there, but it appears that the petitioner has
not cared to inquire about the matter till the award was published. I
am therefore of the view that the Labour Court has not committed any
error in passing the judgement and order.
5. In
the premises aforesaid, I do not find any merits in the petitions.
The same are, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order
as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
ar
Top