Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12803/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12803 of 2010
=========================================================
PRAMOD
DATTATREYA PHADKE - Petitioner(s)
Versus
ANYONYA
CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
KK PANDEY for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 11/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ,direction and order
quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated
15.11.2008 passed in BIR (T) Application No. 8 of 1996 in so far as
awarding 40% back wages only i.e. denying 60% back wages while
passing the order of reinstatement of the petitioner.
2. Shri
Pandey, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted
that as admittedly the respondent did not appear before the Labour
Court and did not even file their reply to the statement of claim and
the case on behalf of the petitioner has never been disputed, once
the termination was set aside, the Labour Court ought to have granted
full back wages and other consequential benefits. It is submitted
that as such the Labour Court has misread and misinterpreted the
deposition of the petitioner and finding that nothing has been
mentioned by the petitioner in the deposition, is not correct.
Therefore,it is requested to admit/ allow the present petition.
3. Having
heard Shri Pandey, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and considering the impugned judgment and award and even
considering the deposition of the petitioner, it cannot be said that
the Labour Court has committed any illegality in awarding only 40%
back wages. Considering the deposition of the petitioner, it appears
that except one statement that he tried to get job but he could not
succeed, no further evidence / documentary evidence has been
produced. It is his case that he tried to get job but has not
substantiated by producing the documentary evidence. Even otherwise,
considering the fact that he worked as a Recovery Inspector / Clerk
only for one year and 10 months and even he did not produce any
evidence to show that he worked after 1.1.1995 to 1.7.1996 and
16.7.1996, Labour Court has rightly awarding only 40% back wages. It
is to be noted that alleged termination was of the year 1996 and if
100% back wages are awarded, he will be getting 12 years back wages
for total length of service of one year and 10 months. Considering
overall aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the
Labour Court has committed any error and / or illegality in awarding
only 40% back wages, which calls for the interference of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. In
view of the above and for the reasons stated above, petition fails,
which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed.
(M.R.SHAH,
J.)
kaushik
Top