Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/2403/2008 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 2403 of 2008
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16335 of
2004
=========================================================
R
K SOLANKI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MANAGER
- Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RAJESH P MANKAD for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS LILU
K BHAYA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 27/08/2008
ORAL ORDER
In
this application, the applicant has prayed for direction to the
opponent, i.e. petitioner of special civil application No.16335 of
2004, to pay the wages to the applicant from the date the award was
required to be implemented till the opponent actually reinstated the
applicant. Considering the prayer in the application, Rule. Ms.
Bhaya, learned advocate, waives service of Rule on behalf of the
opponent. In view of the request of the applicant and with the
consent of the opponent’s advocate, present application is heard and
decided today.
It
appears that the applicant herein had raised industrial dispute,
which culminated into reference (LCV) No.1200 of 1996. In the said
reference, the labour court, Vadodara passed award dated 24.12.2003.
By virtue of the said award, the labour court directed present
opponent to reinstate the present applicant with continuity of
service and 25% of back wages. The said award then came to be
challenged by way of petition being special civil application
No.16335 of 2004. This court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi) by
order dated 23.12.2004 admitted the petition and issued rule.
By
the said order, this court also granted interim relief whereby, the
direction contained in the impugned award only regarding payment of
back wages came to be stayed on the condition that present applicant
was to be reinstated in service within period of four weeks.
In
view of the condition incorporated in the said order dated
23.12.2004, original petitioner was required to reinstate present
applicant on or before 23.1.2005, however, the respondent came to be
actually reinstated on 29.1.2005.
In
this background of facts, the applicant has claimed that he is
entitled for wages for the period from 24.1.2004 (since the award is
dated 24.12.2003 and became enforceable after 30 days) to 28.1.2005
(since the applicant came to be reinstated on 29.1.2005). The court,
by order dated 23.12.2004, did not stay the direction of
reinstatement granted by the labour court. Hence, as per the
directions in the award, the applicant was required to be reinstated
on 23.1.2004 when the award become enforceable and since the
respondent did not reinstate him, he claims the wages for the said
period on the ground that he was always ready and willing to report
for work and the opponent herein i.e. original petitioner did not
reinstate him.
This
application is preferred with the aforesaid background of facts and
with the prayer for direction to the respondent to pay wages from
23.1.2004 to 28.1.2005.
It
is not in dispute that this court has not stayed the direction for
reinstatement granted by the labour court yet the respondent herein
i.e. the original petitioner reinstated the applicant only on
29.1.2005. The opponent herein, despite such facts, is opposing the
application and claims that the opponent is not liable to make
payment of wages for the said period to the applicant. This court is
consciously refraining from making any observation so that the right
of either side may not be affected on account of any observations by
this court at this stage in this application. Suffice it to say that
it is prudent to avoid multiple and/or unnecessary litigation.
Since
the opponent is opposing the relief prayed for by the applicant, the
applicant has two courses available namely, (i) to await the final
hearing of the petition and make request for this very relief at the
time when the final orders in the petition are passed, or (ii) to
approach the appropriate forum and make a claim in accordance with
law.
In
this view of the matter, Mr. Mankad submits that the applicant would
approach the labour court with appropriate application for the claim
made in the present application. For the said purpose, he requests
for permission to withdraw present application to approach labour
court. Permission is granted. Civil Application stands disposed of as
withdrawn. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
[K.M.Thaker,
J.]
kdc
Top