CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 04 GUJ CK 0183

G.S.R.T. Corpn. vs Niranjan Balvantrai Joshi

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 19 April 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.M. Sahai, J · G.B. Shah, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Letters Patent Appeal No. 997 of 2006 in Special Civil Application No. 9081 of 1999

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

4 paragraphs · 362 words

V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard Mr H.S. Munshaw, learned Counsel for the Appellant. Though notice has been served on the Respondent, no one appears for the Respondent. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 22.7.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9081 of 1999.

2.

The brief facts are that the Respondent was appointed on temporary and ad hoc basis with the Appellant. According to the Appellant, after the contract period was over, the Respondent did not work with the Appellant. However, the Respondent raised industrial dispute and the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) 116 of 1990 which was later on transferred to Labour Court, Junagadh and renumbered as Reference (LCJ) No. 1563 of 1990. The Labour Court, by award dated 17.4.1999 allowed the Reference and reinstated the Respondent without back wages. The award was challenged by way of writ petition. It was urged before the learned Single Judge that the Reference was made after 11 years and the Respondent was purely and temporarily appointed workman and the waiting list prepared by the Divisional Selection Committee for the post of Art-C Mechanic. Name of the Respondent was mentioned at Sr. No. 51. The waiting list was lapsed and only 15 topmost candidates could be appointed from the waiting list. As the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the award of the Labour Court on the ground that the Appellant violated the provisions of 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, we do not find any reason to show that the award of the Labour Court was in any manner illegal. Therefore, we do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also filed affidavit dated 7.4.2011 wherein it is mentioned that the Respondent was reinstated in pursuance of the directions of the High Court with effect from 4.8.2000 and he remained absent and the services of the Respondent came to be terminated w.e.f. 24.2.2009. However, in this appeal, we are concerned with order dated 17.4.1999 only.

4.

In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.