Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9787/2006 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9787 of 2006
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 ?
=========================================================
MANOJKUMAR
SHANKARLAL PATHAK - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SHETH
ANANDJI KALYANJI FIRM - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MS
AMI N BHATT for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 25/08/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the impugned award dated 11.07.2005 passed by the Labour Court,
Kalol in Reference [LCK] No. 730/1998, whereby, the Labour Court has
directed the respondent to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.35,000/-
to the petitioner.
2. The
short facts of the case are that the petitioner at the relevant time
was working as Watchman [Chowkidar] with the respondent and he worked
as such for a period of about nine years. The respondent without
following due procedure of law, dismissed the petitioner from service
w.e.f. 15.01.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner was again appointed on
the post of Watchman as reliever at Junagadh Branch vide order dated
23.03.1998. As the petitioner was residing at Kalol, he requested the
respondent to transfer him to a nearby place. However, the respondent
vide order dated 08.05.1998 terminated the service of the petitioner.
2.1. Being
aggrieved by the said order of termination, the petitioner raised a
dispute, which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court for
adjudication being Reference [LCK] No. 730/1998. Before the Labour
Court, both the parties adduced evidence and after appreciating the
material produced before it, the Labour Court partly allowed the
reference with the aforesaid directions. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The learned counsel for the respondent states that the
respondent is agreeable to pay additional amount of Rs.5,000/- to the
petitioner over and above the retirement dues which are payable
under the Rules.
4. Looking
to the facts of the case and in view of the aforesaid statement made
by the learned counsel for the respondent, the respondent is directed
to pay an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner, over
and above the retirement dues which are payable under the Rules,
within a period of six months from today.
5. With
the above clarification and directions, the petition stands disposed
of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to
costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top