Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3870/2000 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3870 of 2000
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 ?
=========================================================
MAYYUDIN
PIRUMIYA SAIYED - Petitioner(s)
Versus
BANCO
PRODUCTS INDIA LTD & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
MS MANSURI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR.VARUN K.PATEL for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 10/08/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara in
Reference (LCV) No.492/1991 dated 16.10.1999 in so far as it denies
reinstatement with full back wages to the petitioner.
2. The
facts in brief are that the petitioner joined the services of the
respondent-Company as a Mechanic on 25.04.1976. On the ground that he
had remained absent from duty unauthorizedly, charge-sheet was issued
to him and ultimately, vide order dated 01.10.1991, he was dismissed
from service. Against the said action of the respondent, the
petitioner raised a dispute, which, ultimately, culminated into a
reference before the Court below. The Labour Court, after considering
the evidence on record, dismissed the Reference but, granted a
lump-sum compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner, by way of the
impugned award. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has
preferred the present petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. It appears from the record that the petitioner was
irregular and demonstrated indiscipline during his service with the
respondent-Company. The petitioner was warned to improve his behavior
and conduct on not less than forty (40) different occasions by the
respondent-Company. He was also suspended in the past. The petitioner
had also remained absent from duty unauthorizedly for a period of
more than ten years.
4. In
view of the above factual aspects, the Reference was rejected by the
Labour Court. I have gone through the impugned award and I find that
no illegality or impropriety has been committed by the Labour Court
while rejecting the Reference of the petitioner. I am in complete
agreement with the reasonings given by the Labour Court and hence,
find no reasons to interfere with the same. In fact, the petitioner
has been awarded Rs.30,000/- as lump-sum compensation looking to the
long period of service, which, in my opinion, is just and
appropriate.
5. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. It is, however,
clarified that if the said amount of Rs.30,000/- [Rupees Thirty
thousand only] and other dues, if any, have not been paid to the
petitioner, then the same shall be paid within a period of two months
from today. With the above direction, the petition stands disposed
of. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Mr.
Varun K. Patel is permitted to file his appearance in the present
proceeding.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top