Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
State vs Bhikhubhai on 9 August, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/9134/2003	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9134 of 2003
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9345 of 2003
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9352 of 2003
 

 
 
======================================
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

BHIKHUBHAI
BACHALBHAI PATEL - Respondent(s)
 

=====================================
 
Appearance : 
MR KP RAVAL,
AGP,  for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. 
MS HINA
DESAI for Respondent(s) : 1, 
======================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 09/08/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. These
petitions are directed against judgement and award dated 31st
December 2002 passed in Reference (LCN) No.1997, dated 17th
December 2002 passed in Reference (LCN) no.90 of 1997 and dated 20th
December 2002 passed in (LCN) No.91 of 1997 by Labour Court, Navsari
whereby the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent
workmen on their original post with continuity of service with full
back wages.

2. According
to the respondents workmen they were working with the petitioner
Department and looking after the plants which are planted in
Ayurvedic garden situated at Rupvel village. According to them, their
services were terminated without any notice or departmental inquiry
and therefore they raised disputes. The disputes were referred to
Labour Court and ultimately resulted in passing the aforesaid awards.

3. Heard
the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the
relevant documents on record. As a result of this exercise, there is
a clear finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner is an
“industry” and the respondents are “workmen”
and learned Advocate for the petitioner could not point out anything
from the record to take a contrary view. Further, in para [C] of the
Judgement the Labour Court has given a clear finding that the the
respondent workmen have completed more than 240 days and therefore
there is a clear violation of 25-F of the Act. Since the workmen have
worked continuously there is no violation of provisions of section
2(oo)(bb) of the Act. I am therefore of the view that the Labour
Court was justified in directing the petitioner to reinstate the
respondents workmen.

4. However,
so far as the back wages is concerned, the Laobur Court has not given
any reason for grant of full back wages. There was no plea nor
evidence or proof to show that form the alleged discontinuation of
their service till the date of the award. I am therefore of the view
that there was no justification for grant of back wages, especially
when the workmen have not worked on the post during the interregnum
period.

5. In
the premises aforesaid, the petitions are partly allowed. The
judgement and awards impugned in the present petitions are quashed
and set aside qua back wages. The respondent workmen shall be granted
continuity of service from 1st January 2003 till their
reinstatement and the payment shall be paid after deducting the
payment already made under the provisions of section 17-B of the Act.
Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.

[K.S.

JHAVERI, J.]

ar

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

35 queries in 0.391 seconds.