IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 7734 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. 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? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO --------------------------------------------------------- VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Versus PANKAJBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL ---------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR GM JOSHI for Petitioner No. 1 MR RD RAVAL for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR Date of decision: 03/09/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. The petitioner-Corporation has challenged the Award passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara dated 14.10.1999 in Reference (L.C.V.) No.837 of 1994. By the aforesaid order, Reference of the concerned workman was partly allowed and the order of oral termination dated 30.10.1991 was set aside by the Labour Court and the Corporation was asked to pay back wages at the rate of 40%. It was further ordered that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of continuity of service and he was awarded costs of Rs.1,000/-. The said Award is challenged by the Corporation. It is not in dispute that the respondent-workman has already been reinstated in service. Mr.Joshi has also placed a letter of the Personal Officer addressed to him stating that the respondent has been reinstated in service. The said letter is kept on record. Mr.Raval for the concerned workman states that the respondent-workman is forgoing the claim for back wages, but he states that the respondent should be given continuity of service and ancillary benefits arising out of the order of the Labour Court. In view of the aforesaid concession on the part of Mr.Raval, the order of the Labour Court is modified to the effect that the order of reinstatement with continuity of service is confirmed. However, the concerned workman will not be entitled to back wages as awarded by the Labour Court. Subject to this modification, rest of the Award of the Labour Court is confirmed. It is needless to state that the Corporation will have to give all other benefits to the respondent, including other benefits on the basis of his seniority in service. The Special Civil Applicaiton is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent, with no order as to costs. ( P.B. Majmudar, J. ) **** (apj)