Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10243/2010 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10243 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
======================================
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 ?
======================================
SARPANCH
- Petitioner
Versus
TULSIDAS
MAGANBHAI BAVAJI - Respondent
======================================
Appearance :
MS
HANSA V PATEL for the Petitioner.
MR YOGEN PANDYA for the
Respondent.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 27/09/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Rule.
Mr.Yogen Pandya, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of the respondent.
2. In
the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the
learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the
present petition is taken up for final hearing today.
3. By
way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner – Sarpanch of Khadadhar Gram
Panchayat, has prayed for an appropriate writ, order and/or
direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned judgement and
award dated 29/01/2010 passed by Labour Court, Amreli in Reference
Case No.66 of 2004, by which, Labour Court, Amreli has allowed the
said Reference by directing the petitioner to reinstate the
respondent on his original post with full backwages for the
intervening period.
4. At
the outset, it is required to be noted that this Court has issued
Notice only for the purpose of considering the backwages.
5. Mr.Yogen
Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, under
the instruction received from the respondent, has left it to the
Court with respect to amount of backwages is concerned. He has
further submitted that though respondent-workman has been reinstated
in the month of January,2010 till date, he has not been paid any
amount of wages except Rs.1200/- each for the month of March,2010 and
April,2010. He has further submitted that at least the respondent is
entitled to get the minimum wages from the date of reinstatement till
date. So far as backwages which may be awarded by this Court is
concerned, as Recovery Application is pending, the same shall be
decided by the concerned Labour Court.
6. Having
heard Ms.Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Mr.Yogen Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf
of the respondent and considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and impugned judgement and award passed by the Labour Court and
considering the financial position of the Panchayat, it appears to
the Court that if the respondent is awarded 25% backwages from the
date of termination till reinstatement, it will meet the ends of
justice.
7. Learned
advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not invite
any further reasoned order while awarding 25% backwages and
modifying the impugned judgement and award passed by the Labour Court
to the aforesaid extent.
8. In
view of the above broad consensus between the learned advocates
appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the petition succeeds
in part. The impugned judgement and award dated 29/01/2010 passed by
Labour Court, Amreli in Reference Case No.66 of 2004 is hereby
modified to the extent of awarding backwages and instead of full
backwages, the petitioner is directed to pay 25% of the backwages to
the respondent for the intervening period i.e. from the date of
termination till date of reinstatement. As the respondent is already
reinstated in service in the month of January,2010, the petitioner is
bound to pay minimum wages to the respondent on the post in question
and the petitioner is directed to pay the same from the date of
reinstatement till date within a period of six weeks from
today without fail. So far as 25% backwages as per modified judgement
and award passed by the Labour Court is concerned, it is reported
that recovery application is already pending with the Labour Court
and, therefore, amount of backwages due and payable to the respondent
shall be decided by the concerned Labour Court in accordance with law
and on merits.
With
this, the present petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to
the aforesaid extent. No costs.
Direct
service is permitted.
[M.R.SHAH,J]
*dipti
Top