SCA/8711/2008 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8711 of 2008
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 ?
=========================================================
RANGE
FOREST OFFICER - Petitioner(s)
Versus
INDRASINH
AJITSINH PARMAR,C/O.GUJARAT FOREST PRODUCERS - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR KP RAVAL
AGP for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS SEJAL K
MANDAVIA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 09/08/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the impugned award dated 31.05.2007 passed by the Labour Court,
Surendranagar in Reference [LCS] No. 46 of 2000 whereby the Labour
Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in
service without back wages.
2. The
short facts of the case are that the respondent workman at the
relevant time was working as Watchman with the petitioner and he has
worked as such for four years continuously. The petitioner without
assigning any reasons, dismissed the respondent workman from service
w.e.f. 30.04.1999. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent
raised a dispute which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court
for adjudication being Reference [LCS] No. 46 of 2000. before the
Labour Court, both the parties adduced evidence and after
appreciating the material produced before it, the Labour Court partly
allowed the reference with the aforesaid directions. Hence, this
petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties. The main contention
raised by the petitioner is that the respondent workman himself
stopped attending the work and his services were not terminated and
therefore the judgment and award is illegal and unjust. On perusal
of the record it transpires that the Labour Court has recorded the
finding that the services of the respondent were terminated without
any notice nor retrenchment compensation. Apart from that the
petitioner had appointed new persons in place of respondent workman.
In view of these findings there is violation of provisions of
Sections 25F, 25G & 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The
learned AGP appearing for the petitioner is not able to point out
anything contrary from the record that the finding of the Labour
Court in this regard is perverse. Therefore, I am of the view that
the Labour Court has rightly passed the award of reinstatement in
service.
4. In
the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim
relief, if any, stands vacated.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
