SCA/3940/1991 1/9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 3940 of 1991 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE =================================================== ========= 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 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? SCA/3940/1991 2/9 JUDGMENT 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Trib unals? --------------------------------------------------- ----------- JOLLY & HONEST CO. Versus AMIN A SAMAD --------------------------------------------------- ----------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 3940 of 1991 MR DG CHAUHAN for Petitioner No. 1 MR DS VASAVADA for Respondent No. 1 --------------------------------------------------- ----------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE Date of decision: 15/06/2005 SCA/3940/1991 3/9 JUDGMENT C.A.V. JUDGEMENT The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgement and Award dtd.20/2/1991 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.9034 of 1978, whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent on his original post with full back wages. The Labour Court also awarded Rs.100/- as costs. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued that the respondent was engaged as a temporary "Cutter" in the tailoring shop on monthly salary of Rs.340/-; that on 26/4/1978, the respondent SCA/3940/1991 4/9 JUDGMENT himself left the job and joined another tailoring shop, M/s.Siddharth Tailors, Ahmedabad on higher pay of Rs.475; that the petitioner has not terminated the services of the respondent; that petitioner asked the respondent to report for work, but the respondent did not report for work as he had joined M/s.Siddharth Tailors on higher monthly salary; that the respondent had also worked with other employers; that the respondent did not report for work even after the order passed by this Hon'ble Court; there is no violation of Sec.25(F) of the I.D. Act; Consequently, it is prayed to quash and set aside the impugned Award. SCA/3940/1991 5/9 JUDGMENT 3. On the other hand hand, Mr.D.S. Vasavada, learned counsel for the respondent has mainly argued that the present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and this Court has limited jurisdiction under the said Articles and this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the fact finding authority when no error is committed by the Labour Court. Furthermore, the reference was made by the appropriate Government in 1978 and Award has been passed by the Labour Court on 20/2/1991. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the decisions reported SCA/3940/1991 6/9 JUDGMENT in AIR 1984 SC, and AIR 1988 SC 2163; that the respondent has not stopped from reporting for work, but his service has been terminated by the petitioner illegally and arbitrarily; that during the course of conciliation proceedings before Mrs.Saiyed, the Government Labour Officer, the respondent was asked for report for work, and when the respondent had gone to the shop of the petitioner to resume his duty, he was not allowed to report for work; that the services of the respondent has been terminated without following the mandatory procedure ; that the respondent was not engaged with other employer as alleged by the petitioner; that the concocted SCA/3940/1991 7/9 JUDGMENT story of the petitioner is not believed by the Labour Court; that the Labour Court has considered all the aspect of the matter and thereafter, the Award has been passed; that the impugned Award is just, legal and proper and therefore, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court. Consequently, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. He has also relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 2002 SC 834 AND 1998 GLH (1) 461. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not considered the aspects of the matter and the Labour SCA/3940/1991 8/9 JUDGMENT Court failed to appreciate that though various opportunities were given by the petitioner and even after the order passed by this Court, the respondent has not reported for work. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the respondent, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has erred in not considering the relevant aspects of the matter while passing the award and therefore, the impugned Award is required to be quashed and set aside. 5. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned judgement and Award dtd.20/2/1991 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) SCA/3940/1991 9/9 JUDGMENT No.9034 of 1978 is quashed and set aside. (S.D. Dave, J.) rafik