RAJULA TALUKA PANCHAYAT v. BIPINBHAI R SARVAIYA
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 30 Jan 2002
- Bench
- H K RATHOD
Outcome
Disposed of
and directions, this petition is disposed of at this
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 r. 26A; s. 17B
Judgment
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD Date of decision: 30/01/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT (cid:9)Heard learned advocate Mr. Munshaw for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil C. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent workman. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award made by the labour court, Amreli in Reference (LCB) No. 422/98 (Old No. 33/95) dated 19th October, 2000 wherein the labour court has set aside the termination order and has granted reinstatement in favour of the respondent workman with continuity of service and full back wages for the intervening period. Initially, this court has issued rule and notice as to interim relief returnable on 16th October, 2001 and ad.interim relief in terms of para 8(C) of the petition has been granted by order dated 1st August, 2001. (cid:9)Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the award in question has been made by the labour court concerned in absence of the petitioner and that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the award in question and, therefore, the award is against the principles of natural justice.
However, according to my view, under rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes Act (Gujarat) Rules, 1966, the petitioner is having remedy to approach the labour court concerned for setting aside such an ex parte award and the labour court is also empowered to grant the interim relief and to condone the delay in moving such an application as per rule 26B of the said Rules. Therefore, on that ground alone, this petition is not required to be entertained by this court. (cid:9)Learned advocate Mr. Patel appearing for the respondent workman has submitted that the award in question has been passed by the labour court concerned on 19th October, 2000 and the interim stay against the reinstatement as well as back wages has been granted by this court and, therefore, the respondent workman is entitled to have the benefits under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As against that submission, learned advocate Mr.
Operative part
Munshaw has submitted that so far the respondent workman has not filed any affidavit as required under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned advocate Mr. Patel for the respondent workman has submitted that the necessary affidavit under section 17B of the Act will be filed by the respondent within fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and copy of such affidavit will be served upon the petitioner. (cid:9)Considering these facts, during the pendency of the present petition, stay has operated against the award passed by the labour court in favour of the respondent workman and, therefore, as per the provisions of section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the respondent workman is entitled to the benefits of his last drawn wages with maintenance allowances during the pendency of the petition. In view of these facts, it is directed to the petitioner to pay the wages under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the respondent workman from 1st August, 2001 till 30th January, 2002 within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order provided that an affidavit under section 17-B is filed by the respondent workman within fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With these observations and directions, this petition is disposed of at this stage without observing anything on merits. There shall be no order as to costs.
30.1.2002. (cid:9) (cid:9)(H.K. Rathod,J.) Vyas (cid:9)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: and directions, this petition is disposed of at this
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — r. 26A; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 17B.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 30 Jan 2002. The bench was H K RATHOD.
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.