Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9265/2002 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9265 of 2002
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13423 of 2004
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14684 OF 2007
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 ?
=========================================
PRAFULBHAI
RAMABHAI SHUKLA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
ADMINISTRATOR
- Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MS MAMTA R
VYAS for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR PS GOGIA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 22/07/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. In
Special Civil Application the challenge is against the judgement and
award dated 7th August 2001 passed in Reference (LCS)
No.263 of1993 by Labour Court, Surendranagar. SCA No.13423 of 2004 is
preferred against the judgement and award dated 21st April
2004 passed by Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No.266
of 1993 and SCA No.14684 of 2007 is preferred against judgement and
award dated 9th November 2006 passed by Labour Court,
Surendranagar, in Reference (LCS) No.265 of 1993. In all the above
References the Labour Court, Surendranagar rejected the references of
the concerned petitioners.
2. In
all the above cases the concerned petitioners were working with the
respondent Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Surendranagar and
their services came to be terminated in pursuance of which disputes
were raised and which were referred to Labour Court, Surendranagar.
However the Labour Court rejected the References and therefore the
present petitions have been filed.
3. It
is pointed out that the Reference came to be rejected on the ground
that APMC is not an industry, which is apparently not a correct view.
Therefore on this ground alone judgements and award require to be
quashed and set aside.
4. However,
in view of the long lapse of time it would not be in the interest of
justice to remand the matter. I am therefore of the view that
interest of justice would be met by directing the respondents to
reinstate the petitioners in service with continuity of service and
without back wages. Learned Advocates for the parties could not
dispute this proposition.
5. In
the premises aforesaid, the judgement and award of the Labour Court
are quashed and set aside. The petitioners shall be reinstated with
continuity of service, within 30 days from the date of receipt of
writ of this order, without back wages. Rule is made absolute
accordingly with no order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
ar
Top