1. Heard Mr. Chirag Patel, learned advocate for Mr. B.S. Patel for the petitioners and Mr. D.J. Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent workman.
2. By an order dated 16.3.2012, this Court (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri, J.) has passed the following order:-
"Rule returnable on 18.04.2012.
By way of ad-interim relief, the impugned award is stayed only qua the direction regarding continuity of service and grant of Rs.5000/- back wages. The order of reinstatement shall be implemented before the returnable date, failing which, the present interim relief shall stand vacated and it will be open to the concerned respondent-workman to initiate proceedings under the provisions of Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming back-wages as if he is continued in service. Direct service is permitted."
3. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 18.4.2012 and on that day, both the learned advocates for the respective parties desired to file affidavit to the effect that whether the aforesaid order dated 16.3.2012 is complied with or not.
4. Today, Mr. Chirag B. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners states that the respondent workman has been reinstated. However, Mr. D.J. Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent workman points out that he has not been reinstated on his original post as well as has not been given continuity of service and thereby, the condition imposed by the order dated 16.3.2012 is not complied with.
5. Considering the aforesaid submissions, as the respondent workman has been reinstated, the ad-interim relief granted vide order dated 16.3.2012 is confirmed as interim relief. However, it would be open for the respondent workman to take appropriate steps if the respondent workman finds any grievance as regards implementation of the aforesaid order dated 16.3.2012. In view of the above, ad-interim relief shall continue as interim relief till final disposal of this petition.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J.] mrpandya Top