Letters Patent Appeal No. 1177 of 1999 · Gujarat High Court · 2000
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 06 Nov 2000
- Bench
- N BHATT, D P BUCH
Outcome
Partly allowed
Therefore, this appeal is partly allowed and
Provisions considered
Judgment
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.P.BUCH ============================================================
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements?
To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?
Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- GSRTC Versus CHANDUBHAI SOMABHAI HARIJAN -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR HS MUNSHAW for Appellant Mr R V Desai for respondent -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT MR.JUSTICE D.P.BUCH Date of decision: 06/11/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT) (cid:9)Admitted. Mr R V Desai, learned Advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent. (cid:9)Upon joint request, the appeal is taken up for final hearing today. (cid:9)In this LPA, the challenge is against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.10322/98 dated 4.5.1999, whereby, the appellant-original petitioner lost the battle. The challenge in the Special Civil Application was against the order and award passed by the Labour Court, at Baroda, on 12.4.1998 in Reference (LCB) No.329/90, whereby, the Reference of an industrial dispute dated
8.5.1990 under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 came to be granted. Thus, the termination order without observing any prescribed procedure recorded by the G.S.R.T.C. came to be quashed and a direction was issued to reinstate the workman with full back wages with interest of 18% w.e.f. 1.4.1998.
Operative part
2.(cid:9)The short question which has come to the surface in this LPA is as to whether the direction to pay full back wages upon reinstatement to the workman who was working as part-time Sweeper (for 5 hours), in the facts and circumstances of the case, is justified or not. After having taken into consideration the submissions raised by the learned Advocates for the parties and the relevant proportion which was applicable to the facts of the case and the nature and type of the work, we are of the opinion that the direction with regard to full back wages requires little modification. In the peculiar facts and special circumstances, the 33% of the back wages shall be paid on or before 30.11.2000 failing which the interest as directed by the Labour Court shall be charged on the said amount of 33% back wages. No other contention is raised. Therefore, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order shall stand, to that extent, modified. Rule is made absolute to that extent. (cid:9) (cid:9)[J N Bhatt, J.] (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9)
6.11.2000(cid:9) (cid:9)[D P Buch, J.] msp. (cid:9) (cid:9)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, this appeal is partly allowed and
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 10(1)(c).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 06 Nov 2000. The bench was N BHATT, D P BUCH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.