AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.P. Dholakia, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dhaval M. Barot and learned APP, Ms. C.M. Shah, for the respondent No. 1.
Though rule issued to the respondent No. 2-Labour Officer, Palanpur and the respondent No. 3-Gitaben Padhiyar has been duly served, they have chosen not to remain present either personally or through advocate.
The petitioner is the Child Development Officer posted at Taluka : Danta, District:
Banaskantha and the respondent No. 3 was working as Anganwadi Karyakar at Kumbhariya-1 under the petitioner and during her duty, she went on maternity leave, however, on completion of said maternity leave, she did not resume duty and, hence, after following due procedure, she was discharged from the service. Therefore, she raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court and by way of Reference, matter has been conducted by the Labour Court and the Labour Court vide Award dated 31.01.2007 passed in Reference Case No. 10/2001 directed the authority to reinstate the respondent No. 3 at the original post without backwages and, therefore, when she resumed duty, she was post at Kumbhariya-2 instead of Kumbhariya-1 as the post at Kumbhariya-1 has already been filled up during the pendency of the Reference and, therefore, the impugned complaint has been filed by the complaint under Sections 17A, 18(3), 29 and 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the breach of the order, which gave rise to file present petition.
I have gone through the order in question, which is for the reinstatement without backwages at original post. Now the question comes to interpretation of the original place and post, upon which, she was working. But there is a difference between the place and post and the original place is also filled up and, therefore, question of putting her at the same place itself does not arise, which is also not the direction of the Labour Court. But the facts remain that for the purpose of pressurizing the Officer, who was discharging her duty as Child Development Officer, false complaint is filed, which even otherwise is required to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, if I interpret the order passed by the Labour Court in its true spirit then only thing which shows only reinstatement on the same post, but not at the same place. Hence, the impugned complaint is required to be quashed and set aside.
Hence, the petition is allowed. Complaint being Criminal Case No. 820/2006 pending before the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danta, District : Banaskantha is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.