Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Lalji Kasnabhai Vankar vs Manager on 25 September, 2017

Author: Paresh Upadhyay

Bench: Paresh Upadhyay

                 C/SCA/14171/2017                                             ORDER




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14171 of 2017

         ==========================================================
              LALJI KASNABHAI VANKAR                                 ....Petitioner
                                          Versus
              MANAGER
              SAFARI PRESS METAL CO. PVT. LTD.                      ....Respondent
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MS. G R SONERAO, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner
         ==========================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY

                                    Date : 25/09/2017


                                     ORAL ORDER

1. Challenge in this petition is made by the workman to the award passed by the Labour Court, Godhra dated 25.01.2017 in Reference (T) No. 279 of 2002, whereby the Referenc eis rejected.

2. Ms. Sonerao, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was illegally terminated by the respondent and the labour machinery was moved by him and the Labour Court fell in error, while rejecting the reference. Learned advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court through the pleadings and has submitted that this petition be entertained.

3. Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner and having considered the material on record, this Court finds that Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Mon Oct 02 04:54:22 IST 2017 C/SCA/14171/2017 ORDER the Labour Court, on the basis of the material led before it, came to the conclusion that, this was not the case of the illegal termination but it was the case of voluntary retirement,which the petitioner had accepted. Even the terminal dues were also paid to him, which he had accepted. On the basis of this material, the Labour Court has found that the grievance of the workman was not justified and has rejected the reference. Considering the totality, this Court finds that, no interference is required in the impugned award.

4. For the above reason, this petition is dismissed.

(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) Salim/9 Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Mon Oct 02 04:54:22 IST 2017