Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/11493/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11493 of 2008
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6972 of 2008
=========================================================
STEEL
CO GUJARAT LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DINESH
MANSUKH PATEL - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No.11493/08
Mr.Raj
Yadav for NANAVATI
ASSOCIATES for Petitioner: 1.
Mr.T.R.Mishra for
Respondent(s) : 1.
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No.6972/08.
Mr.T.R.Mishra
for petitioner.
Mr.Raj
Yadav for NANAVATI ASSOCIATES
for Respondent:
1.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 24/09/2008
COMMON
ORAL ORDER
Heard
learned counsels for the parties. Both the counsels have jointly
requested that both these matters can be heard and disposed of
finally by this common judgment as the parties are the same and the
same award is impugned in both the petitions.
So
far as Special Civil Application No.6972 of 2008 is concerned, which
is filed by the workman petitioner, challenging the award dated
29-2-2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bharuch, in
Reference (LCB) No.330 of 1998 to the extent that it did not grant
relief of reinstatement and back wages despite recording finding
that the termination of the petitioner was not in accordance with
law.
Special
Civil Application No.11493 of 2008 is filed by the employer
challenging the finding and award dated 29-2-2008 with regard to
termination on the ground that Labour Court ought to have rejected
the same.
Mr.Mishra
for the workman contended that when Labour Court has recorded the
conclusion that termination of the workman was not strictly in
accordance with law, despite that erroensouly did not grant
appropriate relief of reinstatement with full back wages. Mr.Mishra
has taken this Court through the observations of Labour Court and
contended that merely recording of finding that the workman earning
Rs.4,800/= in a private firm and time gap of termination till the
award in itself would not prevent granting appropriate relief in
such a case.
This
Court has heard learned counsels for the parties and perused papers.
The finding which deserves to be considered by this Court and which
has remained unchallenged by either side, is that the workman has
been earning Rs.4,800=00 per month in other firm and there is time
gap from the date of termination till the date of order and
especially when the workman had put in only two years of service in
respondent-company. The incident of strike has also been mentioned
which is at the behest of the concerned workman. Labour Court has
also recorded that the charges levelled against the workman can be
said not proved only on account of lack of evidence and looking to
the strained relationship between the parties, Labour Court has
awarded merely compensation. This Court is of the view that the same
cannot be said to be reasonable calling for interference by this
Court. Learned counsel for the employer in Special Civil Applcation
No.11493 of 2008 also could not point out any cogent reason for
interference with the finding of the Labour Court which is recorded
after perusing evidence available on record.
In
view of this, both the applications deserve to be dismissed and
accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to
costs. Notices discharged.
The
workman has already been paid compensation in May, 2008.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)
vijay*
Top