Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4355/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4355 of 2011
=====================================
RAM
KRISHNA TRAVELS PVT LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MANILAL
MAGANBHAI PARMAR - Respondent(s)
=====================================
Appearance
:
MR NILESH A PANDYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RAJESH P MANKAD for Respondent(s) :
1,
=====================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 11/08/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 Learned
advocate Mr. Nilesh A. Pandya for the petitioner invited attention of
the Court to the typed copy of deposition of the respondent –
workman, which is produced at Pages 92 to 94.
2.0 The
petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by award and order
dated 31st December 2010, passed by the learned Judge of
Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference (LCV) No. 282 of 2001.
2.1 What
is required to be noted is, this is an award rendered after the
matter was remanded by this Court by judgment and order dated 28th
April 2010 in Special Civil Application No. 4189 of 2010. Earlier
award and order passed in the same Reference i.e. Reference (LCV) No.
282 of 2001 dated 24th November 2009 was challenged before
this Court and the Court remanded the matter with a direction that:
“9.
It is open to the petitioner to lead oral evidence to establish
involvement of respondent workman in a criminal case. It is also
open to the respondent to rebut the evidence before learned Labour
Court, Vadodara.
10.
It is made clear that the present order passed by this Court is
without expressing any opinion on merits and without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of the parties.”
2.2 Even
after remand, the petitioner is not able to convince the learned
Judge to accept the Investigation Report from a private detective
produced by the petitioner before the learned Judge of the Labour
Court.
2.3 On
perusal of the award and order, this Court finds that the learned
Judge has not committed any error in passing award of reinstatement
with 40% back wages, because, the learned Judge has rightly held that
it cannot be believed that from the date of termination i.e. 3rd
October 2010, the respondent – workman would have remained
totally unemployed. At the same time, the petitioner is also not
able to produce and convince the learned Judge that he was gainfully
employed and earning more than the amount paid by the present
petitioner.
3.0 In
view of the above discussion, the petition, having found without any
substance, is dismissed.
[
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ]
hiren
Top