SANTOSH ENTERPRISES Vs. BHARAT KESURBHAI VASAVA
LAWS(GJH)-2013-2-403
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on February 15,2013

Santosh Enterprises Appellant
VERSUS
Bharat Kesurbhai Vasava Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.S.JHAVERI - (1.)BY way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and award dated 07.02.2004 being Exh.49 passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch, by which the Labour Court has directed petitioner firm is directed to reinstate respondent nos.1 to 3 without backwages and to pay and amount of Rs.15000/- to the legal heirs of the respondent no.4 and Rs.30,000/- to the legal heirs of the respondent no.5. In this petition, the petitioners have made following prayers:-
"(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition. (B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus holding and declaring that the direction in the impugned award so far as the petitioner firm is directed to reinstate respondent nos.1 to 3 without backwages and to pay and amount of Rs.15000/- to the legal heirs of the respondent no.4 and Rs.30,000/- to the legal heirs of the respondent no.5 are violative of Article 19(1)(g) and are harsh, oppressive, unjust, unreasonable, illegal and arbitrary and unsustainable in law as well as on facts. (C) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned award dated 07.02.2004, so far as and to limited extent by which it is challenged in present petition i.e. so far as it directs the petitioner firm to reinstate the respondent nos.1 to 3 and further directs the petitioner firm to pay Rs.15000/- to the legal heirs of respondent no.4 and Rs.30,000/- to the legal heirs of respondent no.5. (D) Pending hearing and final disposal of present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to pass appropriate writ, order or direction, as and by way of interim relief, staying the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned award, only to the limited extent by which it is challenged herein. (E) Any other and further relief as may be para-9(D) above may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners"

(2.)THE facts leading to filing of the present case are as under:- 2.1 The respondents were working with the petitioner no.1 firm. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents on their own stopped reporting
for duty. Therefore, office of the petitioner no.1 firm wrote letters to the respondents on 27.09.1989 asking them to report for duty with a period of four days. However, the aforesaid letters were returned with the endorsement "not accepted" by respondent nos. 1 to 5. In pursuance thereof the respondents herein raised industrial dispute by way of filing reference (LCB No.612/1990). It appears that during the pendecy of reference, respondent nos. 4 and 5 have expired. Thereafter, the Labour Court has passed impugned judgment and award whereby it granted reinstatement to the respondent nos. 1 to 3, whereas granted compensation to the heirs of deceased respondent nos. 4 and 5. In so far as respondent no.6 is concerned, the labour Court was pleased to reject the reference qua him.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

(3.)THE case of the respondents-workmen before the Labour Court was that their services were came to be terminated in the Year-1989 without following the procedure required under the Industrial Dispute Act and despite requested them, no steps were taken by the petitioners. As against them, the case of the petitioners is that the respondents on their own stopped reporting for duty and though office of petitioner no.1 firm wrote a letter to them to report for duty, the respondents did not report for duty. However, a perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the petitioners failed to prove that any such letters were issued to the respondents asking them to report for duty and hence, I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the Labour Court that the services of respondents-workmen were illegally terminated by the petitioners and that petitioners failed to prove that the respondents-workmen on their own discontinued to report for duty. Under such circumstances, the case of the respondents-workmen that since they demanded a rise in salary, they were terminated. At this stage, it is reported that the petitioner no.1 firm, at present is not functioning. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the end of justice would be met by passing the following order.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.