Gujarat High Court
Apollo vs Jitendra on 22 February, 2011
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/993/2011 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 993 of 2011
=================================================
APOLLO
TYRES LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
JITENDRA
SHANTILAL BHAVSAR - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance :
MR.VARUN
K.PATEL for Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 22/02/2011
ORAL ORDER
Heard Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Patel has submitted that in connection with the similar incident, which is the subject matter of present petition, other two employees, who were found to be involved in the same incident, similar action of termination was taken against them and in case of one of the said three employees, the Labour Court passed a similar order, which was challenged by the company by way of Special Civil Application No.21519 of 2007. He has relied on the order passed by the Court in the said matter and submitted that since the incident involved in both the cases is same; the employer is also the same; the penalty is the same; and similar award is under challenge in present petition also, similar order, as is passed in case of Special Civil Application No.21519 of 2007 may be passed.
In the said case, this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.K.Rathod) on 4.10.2007 has passed the following order :-
Heard learned Advocate Mr. KC Raval for the petitioner and Mr. HS Mulia, learned Advocate for the respondent.
Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award made by the labour court, Baroda in Reference No. 912 of 2000 dated 18th June, 2007 wherein the labour court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 20% back wages for interim period.
On 22nd August, 2007, this Court has, while issuing notice to the respondent returnable on 24th September, 2007, granted ad interim relief in terms of Para 13-ii subject to compliance of section 17B of the ID Act, 1947.
Rule.
Heard the learned Advocates for parties on interim relief.
Today, learned Advocate Mr. HS Mulia for the respondent has placed on record affidavit of respondent regarding unemployment. Copy thereof has been served on learned Advocate Mr. KC Raval by the learned Advocate Mr. Mulia.
Considering the averments of unemployment made in para 3 by the respondent, learned Advocate Mr. Raval submitted that the petitioner will pay to the respondent last drawn wages.
In view of the aforesaid back ground, no counter is filed against the affidavit of unemployment by the petitioner and considering the fact, the respondent is entitled for full wages last drawn by him with effect from 18th June, 2007 till 30th September, 2007 within the period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter it is directed to the petitioner to regularly pay such full wages last drawn by the respondent regularly every month till the matter is finally decided by this Court. However, it is open for the petitioner to move this court by filing an application for modification of this order if the petitioner is having any material to satisfy this court that the respondent has been gainfully employed in any establishment and has been earning and receiving adequate remuneration from the establishment.
In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, ad interim relief granted by this court on 22nd August, 2007 is hereby confirmed as interim relief till the matter is finally decided by this Court.
Having regard to the said submission, RULE. Ad-interim relief in terms of para 5(b) subject to compliance with the requirement under Section 17(B) of the Act. Notice as to interim relief returnable on 22.3.2011.
[K.M.Thaker, J.] kdc Top