IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION No 1419 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH ============================================================ 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? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- SABIRBHAI B MALEK Versus RAMA IN HOTEL -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR GC RAY for Petitioner - ABSENT MR AV PRAJAPATI for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH Date of decision: 09/11/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI) Mr. G.C. Ray, learned Counsel for the petitioner is absent. The grievance of the petitioner is that the award of the Labour Court dated 25.4.1997, by which the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service with full backwages has not been complied with. By that award dated 25.4.1997, the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with backwages within 30 days from the date of publication of the award. An affidavit has been filed by the Managing Director of the respondent, which is a unit of MCM Hotels Pvt.Ltd., as stated therein, in which it has been stated on oath that the said unit had incurred loss and its equity is wiped off and that it is a deemed sick unit. It is stated that the bonafides of respondent were shown by making a cash payment of Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioner on 20th March, 1999 and that a further payment of Rs. 10,000 was committed. It is stated in paragraph 13 of the affidavit that, in all, an amount of Rs. 25,000 has been paid to the petitioner. It appears to us that there is no wilful disobedience of the award and that the respondent has been endeavouring to pay the due amounts. Therefore, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to recover the dues that may still be outstanding, we do not propose to take any action under the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondents. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. ----- */Mohandas