AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Paresh Upadhyay, J.—Heard Mr. Tulshi R. Savani, learned advocate for the petitioner. Challenge in this petition is made to the award passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference LCR No. 100/2001, dated 01.11.2012, whereby the action of the petitioner authorities of discontinuing the service of the respondent workman is held to be illegal and the same is quashed and set aside and it is ordered that the respondent be reinstated in service without back wages.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the respondent workman was not appointed after following due procedure. This is the only point which is pressed into service in support of this petition. The law in this regard is settled that an employer cannot be permitted to contend that he himself had committed some wrong and therefore, the other side is not entitled to relief. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust Tr. Pres. and Another Vs. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel and Another, . Thus, the only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is rejected. No order as to costs.