LPA/547/2007 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 547 of 2007 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 145 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= VINODBHAI SOMNATH PATEL - Appellant(s) Versus TROIKAA PARENTERALS & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HARSHAD K PATEL for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 22/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT) LPA/547/2007 2/5 JUDGMENT This Appeal, preferred by the workman, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, arises from the judgment and order dated 13th July, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in above Special Civil Application No.145 of 2000. The appellant - workman was employed by the respondent Troika Parenterals as machine operator in its factory at Village Thol, Taluka Kadi. In the month of February, 1990 or thereabout there was some industrial unrest in the factory at Thol. The workers went on strike. In view of the terms of conciliation agreed before the conciliation officer, the workers were required to report for duty on 9th March, 1990. The workers, however, did not report for duty and continued the strike. In ensuing Reference (LCK) No.279 of 1990 made to the Labour Court, Kalol, by the judgment and award dated 28th July, 1999, the learned Labour Judge held that the workman was retrenched on 25th February, 1990 without following due procedure. The Labour Court directed the respondent – employer to reinstate the workman in LPA/547/2007 3/5 JUDGMENT service with full backwages. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred above Special Civil Application No.145 of 2000 before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge has, by impugned order dated 13th July, 2005, recorded that, “hence, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the following order is passed.” “(A) The petitioner Company is directed to give fresh employment to the respondent workman on or before 30.07.2005 at its Head Office situated in Ahmedabad, i.e. Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad. (B) The respondent workman shall resume the duty on 01.08.2005 at Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad. (C) The petitioner Company shall pay the respondent workman the terminal benefits for the service actually rendered by him, i.e. service rendered up to 25.02.1990 only. LPA/547/2007 4/5 JUDGMENT (D) It is made clear that as and when any vacancy arises at Village Thol, Taluka Kadi, District Mehsana, the petitioner Company shall accommodate the respondent workman at the said place.” It is the above order, which is under challenge before us. It appears that pursuant to the above order, by communication dated 25th July, 2005, the workman was called upon to report for duty on 1st August, 2005 at the office godown at Ahmedabad. In answer to the said letter, on 29th July, 2005, the workman informed the respondent that he was appointed as a factory operator and that he was willing to join duty at Thol factory. In the present Appeal, the workman has challenged the impugned order mainly against the direction that the workman shall resume duty on 1st August, 2005 at Ahmedabad. It is urged that the workman is resident of Village Thol if he is posted at Ahmedabad, daily commutation to Ahmedabad would be an expensive affair and that the workman would not be able to afford such expense. LPA/547/2007 5/5 JUDGMENT We are unable to entertain this Appeal. As recorded hereinabove, the impugned order was made with the consensus of the learned advocates. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge are binding equally to the workman and the employer. Challenge to the order obtained by consensus is not sustainable. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. (Ms. R.M.Doshit, J.) (K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc