Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5882/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5882 of 2010
=========================================================
KHIMJI
BHUTABHAI SAKHAT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
ATIT D THAKORE for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
RITURAJ M MEENA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 09/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in
Reference (LCR) No. 395/1994 dated 04.05.2004 and to direct the
respondent-Board to reinstate the petitioner will full back wages and
other consequential benefits.
2. The
facts in brief are that the petitioner was serving as a Watchman with
the respondent-Board. The respondent-Board terminated the services of
the petitioner on 31.05.1994. Being aggrieved by the said action of
the respondent-Board, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute,
which, ultimately, culminated into a reference before the Labour
Court, Rajkot. After hearing both the sides and after considering the
evidence on record, the Labour Court disposed of the said Reference
by granting compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner and no
other benefits. Against the said award, the petitioner has preferred
the present petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The award in question was passed in May 2004. Pursuant to
the passing of the said award, the respondent-Board deposited the
amount of compensation, viz. Rs.15,000/-, before the Court below. It
is stated at the bar by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
said amount has not been withdrawn by the petitioner so far.
4. However,
the fact remains that there is a delay of more than six years in
filing the present petition. No explanation, much less any
satisfactory explanation, has come from the petitioner with regard to
the said delay. Hence, only on this ground, the present petition
deserves to be rejected.
5. Consequently,
the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. It is, however,
observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to withdraw the
amount of compensation, which has been deposited by the respondent
before the Court below, after following requisite formalities.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top