SCA/485/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 485 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= MOHANBHAI M PARMAR - Petitioner Versus VOLTAMP TRANSFORMERS LTD. & 2 - Respondents ========================================================= Appearance : MR DS VASAVADA for Petitioner : 1, M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA for Respondent : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondent : 2, MS VS PATHAK AGP for Respondent : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 17/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. With the SCA/485/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT joint request of learned counsel for the parties for final disposal, this matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner, workman has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 5.10.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vadodara rejecting his Reference No. LCV- 1023/98. 3. Shri Vasavada, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the labour Court ought to have decided the issue with regard to workman's entitlement for being reinstated, that issue has not been addressed to by the Labour Court in its discussion and therefore, entire Award is vitiated. The Labour Court has proceeded further on the ground that the workman has not reported for duty and therefore, his name was rightly removed from the roll and therefore, workman is not entitled to be reinstated. 4. Shri Kunal B. Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondent employer has submitted that the labour Court's order and award rejecting the award cannot be said to be in consonance with law especially when there was a consistent stand of the employer that workman had proceeded on leave from 21.3.1996 and thereafter, he did not SCA/485/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT report for duty and ultimately his name was removed from the roll. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The reading of the entire award of the labour Court and framing the issues, go to show that relevant findings for arriving at the conclusion that petitioner workman was not entitled to be reinstated is conspicuously absent. There ought to have been findings with regard to a issue as to whether the workman abundant his employer and did not report for his duty as alleged by the employer and whether the workman did report for duty and was not permitted to resume duties. Without there being a specific finding on these points, it was not open to the Labour Court to proceed on the assumption that the workman abundant his duties as alleged by the employer. This Court, though considered that even the terms of reference is not happily couched and that itself would not be serious ground so as to non-suit the workman. Suffice it to say that, the award as such is untenable in eye of law as there was no findings on aforesaid issues on record. The award, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Labour Court for deciding it afresh in light of the evidence that may adduced and on framing appropriate issues as to whether the workman SCA/485/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT abundant his employer and did not report for his duty as alleged by the employer and whether the workman did report for duty and was not permitted to resume duties. Both the counsels have agreed that their parties will cooperate for early disposal of the Reference. In view of that, the Labour Court is directed to dispose of the Reference as expeditiously as possible. 6. With these directions, the petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) pallav