Gujarat High Court
Divisional Controller vs Mohanbhai Lakhabhai Makwana & on 4 July, 2016
Author: C.L.Soni
Bench: C.L. Soni
C/SCA/11540/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11540 of 2015
==========================================================
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER....Petitioner(s)
Versus
MOHANBHAI LAKHABHAI MAKWANA & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK C RAWAL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR VB KUNDAN SINGH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI
Date : 04/07/2016
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Raval for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Singh for the respondent No.1 on admission and interim relief.
2. RULE returnable on 21st September, 2016. Learned Advocate Mr. Singh waives service of Rule for the Respondent No.1.
3. On the question of grant of interim relief, learned Advocate Mr. Raval submitted that the respondent No.1 was having 29 defaults at his credit out of which for about 18 cases, he suffered the punishment of stoppage of increments ranging from 3 months to one year, either with permanent effect or without permanent effect and though such Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Tue Jul 05 03:35:27 IST 2016 C/SCA/11540/2015 ORDER details of default card were placed before the Labour Court, the Labour Court has granted reinstatement with 25% back wages with available retirement benefits.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Singh, on the other hand, submitted that since the Labour Court found that the action taken against the Respondent No.1 was illegal and since the Respondent No.1 retired, the impugned award was made for the retirement benefits with 25% back wages which is just and proper.
5. The Court, however, finds that in view of the defaults pointed out, the impugned award/order granting back wages to respondent No.1 is required to be stayed, till the petition is finally decided.
6. In view of the above, by way of interim relief, it is ordered that the impugned award dated 17.7.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (T) No. 7 of 2011 shall remain stayed in so far as granting of 25% back wages is concerned. It is clarified that there is no stay against granting of retirement benefits to respondent No.1.
(C.L.SONI, J.) anvyas Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Tue Jul 05 03:35:27 IST 2016