IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16797 of 2007 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ================================================================
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 ?
================================================================ EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & 1 Petitioner(s) Versus JASVANTKUMAR KISHORCHAND SOLANKI Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance:
MR VISHAL PATEL, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1-2 MR SHAILESH C SHARMA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED BY DS for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 24/12/2012 ORAL JUDGEMNT
1. This Court on 07.12.2012 passed the following order :
“Heard Mr. Patel, ld. AGP. However, Mr. Sharma, ld. Counsel is not present. As a last chance, S.O to 24/12/2012. It is, however, made clear that if Mr. Sharma is not present, the matter will be taken ex- parte.”
2. Even today Mr. Sharma is not present. No mentioning has been made on his behalf. In that view of the matter, petition is taken up for hearing today.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 05.02.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No. 376 of 2001 whereby the Labour Court directed reinstatement with 50% backwages, the present petition is preferred.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was working with the Irrigation Department and was terminated when his services came to an end against which the respondent filed reference before the Labour Court. The Labour Court after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
5. Mr. Vishal Patel, learned AGP appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent workman had not completed 240 days in the preceding calendar year. He submitted that pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner called upon the respondent workman to resume duty but the respondent did not turn up till date. He submitted that the very conduct of the workman shows that he is not serious with the work and does not intend to continue his services. Mr. Patel submitted that the award of the Labour Court impugned in this petition therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6. Having heard learned advocates for the petitioner and having perused the papers on record, it is borne out that the respondent workman has abandoned the work and has not turned up for duty inspite of repeated attempts on the part of the petitioner in granting reinstatement. Therefore, the contention taken by the petitioner before the Labour Court seems to be just and proper. The respondent is not interested in resuming his duty. The respondent seems to have willfully abandoned the work. In such an event even the payment of backwages to the respondent workman is not warranted. Therefore, the award of the Labour Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. In the premises aforesaid, petition is allowed. The award impugned in the present petition is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.
divya (K.S.JHAVERI, J.)