Heard Mr.K.M.Patel, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Varun K. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner. It is submitted that there is a material contradiction in the evidence tendered by respondent No.1, which can be taken into consideration, in order to do substantial justice. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment in the case of Municipal Committee Tauru Vs. Harpal Singh and another reported in (1998) 5 SCC
635. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 has not pleaded in the application that he was not gainfully employed at any other place, therefore, 50% back-wages could not have been granted to him. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of J.K.Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P.Agrawal and another reported in (2007) 2 SCC 433.
Issue Rule returnable on 17.07.2012.
The direction in the impugned award made by the Labour Court to the extent of payment of 50% back-wages, that has been upheld by the impugned judgment of the Industrial Tribunal, shall remain stayed till then. However, there shall not be any stay on the other reliefs that have been granted to respondent No.1.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) Gaurav+ Top