SCA/9484/1999 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9484 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= BARODA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Petitioner(s) Versus MUKESH CHUNILAL PARMAR - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PRANAV G DESAI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR RD RAVAL for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 08/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner – Baroda SCA/9484/1999 2/4 JUDGMENT Municipal Corporation challenging the Judgement and Award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vadodara dtd.27/7/1999 in Reference (LCV) No.781 of 1993, by which the Labour Court has directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages from 29/5/1993. 2. Mr.Raval, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent workman has submitted that the respondent is already reinstated by the Corporation and is working since more than five years. The aforesaid factum is not disputed by Mr.Desai, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner – Corporation. 3. Mr.Raval, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and to settle the dispute amicably, more particularly when the respondent has to work with the petitioner Corporation, the respondent is ready and willing to accept 25% back wages instead of 50% as ordered by the Labour Court. 4. I have gone through the judgement and award passed by the learned Labour Court and considering the same it cannot be said that the learned Labour Court has committed an error in passing the order of reinstatement. SCA/9484/1999 3/4 JUDGMENT On appreciation of evidence, the learned Labour Court has held that the respondent workman has worked for 788 days and that before terminating the respondent, procedure as required under sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been followed. Such a finding is based upon appreciation of evidence. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the judgement and award passed by the learned Labour Court, Vadodara directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman is in any way illegal or contrary to evidence on record and hence the same do not call for interference of this Court in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, so far as the quantum of back wages is concerned, as per the concession given by Mr.Raval, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent workman to the effect that the respondent workman is ready and willing to accept 25% back wages w.e.f. 29/5/1993 instead of 50% as awarded by the learned trial court and therefore, the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned Labour Court Vadodara requires to be modified to the aforesaid extent. 5. For the reasons recorded above, the petition succeeds in SCA/9484/1999 4/4 JUDGMENT part. The impugned judgement and award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vadodara dtd.27/7/1999 in Reference (LCV) No.781 of 1993 is hereby modified to the extent that the respondent workman would be entitled to 25% back wages w.e.f. 29/5/1993 instead of 50% as awarded by the learned Labour Court. The rest of the judgement and order is hereby confirmed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. [M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik