SCA/21997/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 21997 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: 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 ? ========================================================= SULEMANBHAI HUSAINBHAI VANAT - Petitioner(s) Versus DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR YOGEN for MR HRIDAY BUCH for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS AN PATEL for MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 14/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT In this petition, the petitioner has challenged an award dated 11.12.2006 passed by the labour court in reference No.7 of 2002. Mr. Yogen appears for Mr. Buch, learned advocate SCA/21997/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT on behalf of the petitioner, and Ms. AN Patel appears for Mr. Rawal, learned advocate for the respondent corporation. I have heard the submissions made by Mr. Yogen for the petitioner and by Ms. Patel for the respondent corporation. Ms. Patel appearing for Mr. Rawal, learned advocate for the respondent corporation, has placed on record copy of the order dated 3.8.2007 passed by the Court (Coram: Mr. H.K.Rathod, J.) in special civil application No.19380 of 2007. In the said petition, the very same award, which is the subject matter of the present petition i.e. award dated 11.12.2006 passed in reference No.7 of 2002 was challenged by the respondent corporation. After considering the award as well as rival contentions of both the sides in detail, the Court was pleased to reject the petition preferred by the present respondent corporation by order dated 3.8.2007 passed in said special civil application No.19380 of 2007. SCA/21997/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT It is pertinent to note that while passing the said order and dismissing the petition, this Court noticed that the petitioner workman was terminated on account of his continuous absence due to illness with effect from 9.2.1978 and consequently, he was dismissed with effect from 18.7.1978 and that against such termination he preferred reference in 2002. Thus, the dispute was raised after a period of 14 years and almost 28 years had passed, since the date of dismissal, when the award came to be passed. Considering the said aspect, this Court (Comam : Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.K.Rathod) found the said award just and reasonable and that therefore, this Court, in paragraph – 6 of the said order, has observed as under:- “6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Advocate Mr. Raval before this court. Considering the reasoning given by the labour court, according to my opinion, relief of reinstatement cannot be granted because total interim period comes to more than 28 years and, therefore, labour court has rightly applied mind and granted SCA/21997/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT compensation of Rs.30,000.00 in lieu of reinstatement and in doing so, no error has been committed by the labour court warranting interference of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.” Consequently, the award has been confirmed by this Court by order dated 3.8.2007 and this Court has held that the labour court has rightly applied its mind and granted compensation of 30,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. When this Court has, while considering the very same award observed as aforesaid and rejected the petition challenging the award, I am bound by the same. Therefore, present petition preferred by the petitioner against the same award cannot be entertained. Hence, present petition is rejected. Notice discharged. No order as to costs. [K.M.Thaker, J.] kdc