CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 09 GUJ CK 0029

Bhupendra Chandulal Thakar vs Manasman Rexorth (India) Ltd.

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 7 September 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.M. Sahai, J · K. S. Jhaveri, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1286 of 2011 in Special Civil Application No. 8474 of 2003

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 383 words

V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard learned Counsel Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay for the Appellant.

2.

This Intra-Court Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 11.01.2011 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 8474 of 2003 by which the Learned Single Judge has held that the Appellant has already been paid Rs. 7 Lacs u/s 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated 19.02.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 383 of 2000, to put an end to the entire litigation, the Learned Single Judge has awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3.50 Lacs over and above Rs. 7 Lacs which has already been paid to the Appellant u/s 17B of the I.D. Act.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has urged that the Appellant is not willing to accept lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3.50 Lacs awarded by the Learned Single Judge and hence the present appeal is filed.

4.

A departmental inquiry was initiated against the Appellant for allegation of misbehaving with the officer - employer. After the inquiry, the Appellant was dismissed from service. The Appellant filed Reference (LCA) No. 383 of 2000 before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. The Labour Court by award dated 19.02.2003 set aside the dismissal order and imposed punishment of three increments with permanent future effect and directed the Respondent to reinstate the Appellant with full back wages. The Respondent challenged the said award by preferring writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 8474 of 2003. The Learned Single Judge after considering the fact that the Appellant has already been paid Rs. 7 Lacs u/s 17B of the Act, with a view to put an end to the entire litigation, by the impugned judgment directed the Respondent to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3.50 Lacs and quashed the award of the Labour Court.

5.

We have gone through the impugned judgment of the Learned Single Judge as well as the award of the Labour Court. We find that the lumpsum compensation awarded by the Learned Single Judge to the Appellant is just and proper. Therefore, No. interference is called for in the impugned judgment of the Learned Single Judge. This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.