Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA/1897/2011 2 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1897 of 2011 ======================================================== SIDDHI COOPERATIVE BANK LTD THROUGH MANAGER - Petitioner(s) Versus IQBALBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR GM JOSHI for Petitioner(s) : 1, DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 22/02/2011 ORAL ORDER
Heard Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Saiyed,
learned advocate for the respondent. The respondent herein has
preferred SCA No.17267 of 2010 and challenged the same
award which is challenged in present petition by the employer i.e.
Siddhi Cooperative Bank Limited. In view of the fact that the same
award is challenged by the employer and the employee, the contention
raised by the petitioner deserves to be considered. Hence, Rule.
Mr. Saiyed, learned advocate waives service of Notice of Rule on
behalf of the respondent.
So far as the interim relief is concerned it is noticed that the
petitioner herein had raised contention that the respondent is not
covered within the definition of the term “employee”
as defined under Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relation Act,
1946. The labour Court, having examined the decision of the employer
of dispensing the inquiry and then establishing the charges before
the Court, came to the decision to award Rs.1,50,000/- as
compensation instead of granting any other relief including relief of
reinstatement and/or backwages. In Appeal learned Industrial Court
enhanced the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. However
on examination of the order any justifiable reason for enhancing such
amount from the amount awarded by the labour Court does not emerge.
It prima facie appears that the reasons recorded by the labour Court
with regard to the petitioner’s contention that respondent was not
employee are required to be examined in light of the legal position
settled by catena of judgments. Hence, having regard to the aforesaid
aspects and balance of convenience, interim relief deserves to be
granted. Thus, it is directed that by way of interim relief the
operation of the impugned award shall remain stayed. The interim
relief shall enure until final hearing of the matter.