Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9115/2001 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9115 of 2001
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=====================================
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 ?
======================================
SURENDRANAGAR
DISTRICT PANCHAYAT & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
RAVJIBHAI
OGHADBHAI & 3 - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance
:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MRS DT SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1 -
4.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 12/08/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. The
challenge in this petition is against the judgement and award dated
19th December 2000 passed by Labour Court, Surendranagar
in Reference (LCS) No.199 of 1993 whereby the Labour Court directed
the petitioners to reinstate the respondents in service with 20%
back wages.
2. According
to the respondents, they were serving under the present petitioner
since about 15 years in Sayla Division and their services were
terminated on 9th August 1989 without giving notice or
notice pay or retrenchment compensation. They therefore raised a
dispute which was referred to Labour Court which resulted in the
aforesaid judgment and award.
3. Heard
the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the
relevant documents on record. As a result of this exercise it is
found that the Labour Court has discussed in detail that the
respondents were working with the petitioner continuously and that
there is clear breach of provisions of the Act. There is a clear
finding that the juniors of the respondent were retained in service.
Learned Advocate for the petitioners is not able to point out
anything from the record to show that the order of reinstatement is
perverse in any manner whatsoever.
4. However,
there was no plea nor evidence or proof to show that from the
alleged discontinuation of his service till the date of award, the
respondent was not in gainful employment. Therefore, I am of the
view that there was no justification for grant of back wages,
especially when the workman has not worked on the post during the
interregnum period.
5. In
the premises aforesaid the impugned judgment and award is quashed and
set aside qua back wages. The rest of the award is confirmed. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
ar
Top