Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7552/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7552 of
2011
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH THE CIRCLE FOREST & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
BHIKHABHAI
KUMBHABHAI - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NEERAJ SONI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MR PREMAL S RACHH for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 05/08/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
leaned AGP, Mr. Neeraj Soni, for the petitioner No.1-State of Gujarat
through the Circle Forest Officer, Normal Range, Jam-Khambhalia,
Jamnagar and petitioner No.2-Deputy Forest Officer, Normal Range,
Jamnagar.
2. The
petitioners are before this Court, being aggrieved by the award and
order dated 10.08.2010, passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court
No.2, Jamnagar, in Reference (L.C.J.) No. 287/2000, whereby the
learned Judge was pleased to partly allow the reference and ordered
reinstatement of the respondent-workman on his original post with
continuity of service, with 10 per cent back wages from 27.04.2005
i.e. the day on which his deposition was recorded in the Labour
Court.
3. Learned
AGP tried to assail the award and order of the Labour Court and
submitted that the learned Judge committed an error in awarding
reinstatement with continuity of service on the original post, with
10 per cent back wages.
4. Learned
Advocate, Mr. Rachh, for the respondent workman submitted that, in
fact, it was for the respondent-workman to make grievance that only
10 per cent back wages are awarded and that is also from 27.04.2005.
Learned Advocate for the respondent rightly submitted that the
learned Judge has tried to mention that the respondent-workman is
responsible for not getting the Reference heard for 10 long years, as
if it was his choice.
5. This
Court is in agreement with the submission made by the learned
Advocate for the respondent that the learned Judge has tried to
attribute the entire period, during which the Reference could not be
heard, to the respondent-workman, which is not in the fitness of the
things. Be that as it may, as there is no petition filed by the
respondent-workman, this submission is not gone into any further.
6. Despite
strenuous efforts, the learned AGP is unable to convince the Court
that the learned Judge of the Labour Court has committed an error.
This
petition having been found without any substance requires to be
dismissed and is DISMISSED.
Notice is discharged.
(RAVI
R.TRIPATHI,J.)
Umesh/
Top