Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4548/2011 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4548 of 2011
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6318 of 2011
To
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6328 of 2011
For Approval and
Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
Yes
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
No
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 ? No
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
No
=========================================================
KALAPI
RESTAURANT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
PREMSING
PRATAPSING AND 11 OTHERS - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
IA PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR YOGEN N PANDYA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 14/10/2011
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule.
Learned advocate Mr Yogen N Pandya waives service of Rule for the
respondents. At the request of the learned advocate for the
petitioner, the matter is taken up for final disposal today to which
Mr Pandya for the respondent has no objection.
2. Heard
learned advocate Mr I.A. Patel for the petitioner in all these
matters and learned advocate Mr Yogen N Pandya for the respondents.
3. The
petitioner-Kalapi Restaurant, through its proprietor, is before this
Court being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13.4.2010
passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court No.1, Ahmedabad in
Reference (LCA) No.53 of 2005 whereby the learned Judge was pleased
to partly allow the reference and order reinstatement on the original
post with 25% backwages.
4. The
matter was heard at length and the learned advocate for the
petitioner was given time to consult his client to find out an
amicable settlement of the matter.
5. Learned
advocate Mr I.A. Patel produced a tabular statement showing the
amount payable to each of the workmen. Learned advocate for the
petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the fact that one of
the workmen has died. It goes without saying that the amount will be
paid to his heirs.
6. Learned
advocate Mr Pandya appearing for the respondent-workmen submitted
that this amount the workmen are entitled to get as per the order
passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court. The learned advocate
for the respondent-workmen also submitted that for agreeing to
settlement, the petitioner-management must pay something in addition
to the amount payable.
7. On
long drawn consultation with the petitioner-management by the learned
advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner-management has come
forward with a proposal to pay Rs.10,000/- in addition to the amount
payable as mentioned in the tabular statement. The learned advocate
for the petitioner requested that the petitioner-management be
granted some time and the facility of making the payment in
installments.
8. The
learned advocate for the respondent-workmen submitted that looking to
the ensuing Diwali festival, it would be in the fitness of things, if
the petitioner-management is directed to pay the amount before
Diwali.
9. Taking
into consideration the rival submissions made by the learned advocate
for the parties, it is deemed proper that the time as prayed for is
granted of six weeks to the petitioner-management to pay the entire
amount in two equal installments. It is directed that the
petitioner-management shall pay the first installment before Diwali
i.e. on or before 24th October 2011.
10. With
these directions, the judgment and award dated 13.4.2010 passed by
the learned Judge, Labour Court No.1, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA)
No.53 of 2005 is modified. The petition is disposed of with no order
as to costs. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
11. At
the request of learned advocate Mr Pandya for the respondents,
liberty is reserved in case of difficulty. At the request of Mr I.A.
Patel for the petitioner, it is clarified that this payment will be
in full and final satisfaction of the award.
(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)
zgs/-
Top