SCA/16018/2005 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16018 of 2005 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 ? ============================================================== GUJARAT STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Petitioner(s) Versus PRAKASHKUMAR MANILAL PATEL - Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance : MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Petitioner No(s).: 1. DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent No(s).: 1. MR DIPAK R DAVE for Respondent No(s).: 1. ================================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 24/08/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT Rule. Shri Dipak Dave, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 2. In this petition under Article 226/227 of SCA/16018/2005 2/3 JUDGMENT the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 4.2.2005 passed by the Labour Court, Valsad, in Reference (LCV) No. 649 of 1999, by which the Labour Court has partly allowed the said Reference directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman with continuity of service with effect from 1.1.1999 and to make payment of 50% of backwages from that date. 3. Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent has fairly conceded that he is not insisting for backwages as ordered by the Labour Court, Valsad. 4. Sofar as the order of reinstatement is concerned, Mr. Raval, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not able to satisfy this Court with regard to the finding of fact given by the Labour Court. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to reappreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the impugned judgment and award. However, in view of the concession given by the learned advocate for the respondent workman, the impugned judgment and award passed qua granting of 50% backwages with effect from 1.1.1999 is required to be quashed and set aside and the impugned judgment and award is required to be modified accordingly. 5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the SCA/16018/2005 3/3 JUDGMENT petition succeeds partly. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Valsad in Reference (LCV) No. 649 of 1999 dated 4.2.2005 is modified to the aforesaid extent and it is held that the respondent workman will not be entitled to any backwages from 1.1.1999. The rest of the judgment and award, passed by the Labour Court, Valsad, is not disturbed and the same is confirmed. The petitioner is directed to reinstate the respondent workman within the period of two weeks from today. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted on respondent. [ M.R. Shah, J. ] RMR.