Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/2474/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR DIRECTION No. 2474 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8002 of 2010
=========================================================
VRAJESHKUMAR
HIRALAL PARIKH - Petitioner(s)
Versus
NAVDURGA
INDANE - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PF ADHVARYU for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR.T.J.MODI for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 16/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned advocate Mr.P.F.Adhvaryu for applicant – original
respondent and learned advocate Mr.T.J.Modi for respondent –
original petitioner.
2. Present
application is preferred with a prayer to direct the original
petitioner to reinstate the workman to his original post along with
50% back wages.
3. Initially,
in SCA No.8002 of 2010, on 14.7.2010, this Court has passed following
order :
“The
learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent workman
will be reinstated in service before the next date of hearing. Thus,
in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Notice only for the purpose of back wages,
returnable on 09.08.2010.
As
the learned counsel for the petitioner has assured that the
respondent workman will be reinstated with continuity in service, the
impugned award qua back wages is stayed.”
3.1 Thereafter,
on 23.8.2010, this Court has passed following order :
“Though
served, nobody has appeared. Hence, Rule. Ad-interim-relief granted
earlier stands confirmed.”
4. The
averments made in Para.8 of this application, is quoted as under :
“8. The
applicant humbly submits that the applicant could not appear before
this Hon’ble Court when the order at Annexure-A to this application
is passed since the son of the applicant expired and because of this
shock, the applicant could not engage any advocate to appear before
this Hon’ble Court. However, in absence of the applicant also, the
Hon’ble Court passed the order at Annexure-A to this application. It
is submitted that the opponent herein is not complying with the said
order at Annexure-A to this application though specific statement was
made by the opponent herein before this Hon’ble Court to reinstate
the applicant to his original post before the next date of hearing
i.e. 9.8.2010.”
5.1 The
son of the applicant has expired on 9.9.2010 and before that, he was
sick.
6. The
Labour Court has passed the award in favour of present applicant –
workman on 6.4.2010 and granted reinstatement with continuity of
service with 50% back wages of interim period. This Court has not
granted stay against reinstatement with continuity of service and
only stay has been granted qua back wages by an order dated 14.7.2010
and said ad-interim relief has been confirmed in absence of applicant
and his advocate. Therefore, it is directed to original petitioner
to reinstate the present applicant in service as there is no stay
against reinstatement with continuity of service, as early as
possible, within a period of 15 days from date of receiving copy of
present order.
7. Learned
advocate Mr.Modi appearing on behalf of original petitioner made a
statement before this Court that wages from date of award till the
date of actual reinstatement will be paid by original petitioner to
workman within a period of three months.
8. Therefore,
it is directed to original petitioner – M/s.Navdurga Indane to
pay wages from date of award – 6.4.2010 till the date of actual
reinstatement within a period of three months from date of receiving
copy of present order, provided that workman reports for work.
9. In
view of aforesaid observations and directions, preset application is
disposed of.
[
H.K.RATHOD, J. ]
(vipul)
Top