Gujarat High Court
Manager vs Ramanbhai M. Jamadar on 21 January, 2014
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
C/SCA/25673/2006 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 25673 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Sd/-
===============================================================
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 ?
================================================================
MANAGER....Petitioner(s)
Versus
RAMANBHAI M. JAMADAR....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR JOY MATHEW, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR TR MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date : 21/01/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
1.00. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/25673/2006 JUDGMENT writ, order and/or direction to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and award dated 5/5/2006 passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference (LCB) No.90 of 1996 by which the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner to pay 20% back wages till he came to be reinstated during the pendency of the Reference.
2.00. That the respondent was serving with the respondent. It appears that the respondent went on leave in the month of August, 1995 and went on his native - Maharashtra on the ground that there is some religious function in his house. However, thereafter the respondent workman did not resume the duty. Notices were sent upon the respondent workman and it appears that the same could not be served as correct native address of the respondent workman was not given / furnished by the respondent workman. It appears that thereafter the respondent workman raised an industrial dispute alleging inter-alia that he has been arbitrarily and illegally terminated from service w.e.f. 1/10/1995. That the petitioner filed reply to the written statement contending inter-alia that as such the respondent workman remained unauthorisedly absent without getting the leave sanctioned and he himself did not resume the duty. It was the specific case on behalf of the petitioner that there was no retrenchment by the petitioner as alleged. That a purshish was submitted before the Labour Court at Ex.40 on 5/3/2004 and consequently the respondent was taken back in service and it is reported that the respondent workman has been continued in service even till date. That by the impugned judgement and award the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner to pay 20% back wages mainly on the ground Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/25673/2006 JUDGMENT that the though the respondent can be said to be unauthorisedly absent, however, as no further steps were taken by the petitioner inclusive of the departmental proceedings, the respondent workman is entitled to 20% back wages.
2.01. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned Labour Court awarding 20% back wages to the respondent workman with cost of Rs.1000/-, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3.00. Heard Mr.Joy Methew, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Mishra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent and perused the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned Labour Court directing the petitioner to pay 20% back wages to the respondent workman.
3.01. From the impugned judgement and award passed by the Labour Court, it appears that the respondent workman remained unauthorisedly absent. However, during the pendency of the Reference, he came to be reinstated in service. It appears that the learned Labour Court has awarded 20% back wages to the respondent workman mainly and solely on the ground that despite the fact that the respondent workman can be said to be unauthorisedly absent, however, as no further departmental proceedings were initiated by the petitioner, the respondent workman is entitled to 20% back wages. The aforesaid cannot be sustained. Once the Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/25673/2006 JUDGMENT respondent workman abandoned the work and did not resume the duty and remained unauthorisedly absent, it cannot be said that there was any retrenchment and/or termination and/or removal by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the learned Labour Court has materially erred in awarding 20% back wages to the respondent workman. As stated above, during the pendency of the Reference, the respondent workman has been reinstated in service and he is in service till date. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the impugned judgement and award passed by the Labour Court awarding 20% back wages and imposing cost of Rs.1000/- cannot be sustained deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4.00. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition succeeds. The impugned judgement and award passed by the Labour Court awarding 20% back wages and imposing cost of Rs.1000/- is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.
[M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik Page 4 of 4