Aasif Saifuddin Vora vs Khodiyar Mandap Service

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate Writ to direct the respondent to pay full backwages and quash and set aside the limited part of award which refuses to grant 60% backwages to the petitioner and to modify the award and grant 100% backwages instead of 40%.

The petitioner was appointed as Labourer in January, 1985 with the respondent Company and he was drawing Rs. 950/- per month as salary. The petitioner worked continuously till the date of termination i.e. 10.02.1989. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner gave demand notice dated 15.04.1989, which was refused. Thereafter, complaint was made before the Labour Department, Rajkot and thereafter, Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rajkot made reference for adjudication to Labour Court, Rajkot on 12.10.1989 and said dispute was registered as Reference (LCR) No. 1365 of 1989 and since, ex-parte award was passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajkot, it was restored as application was moved by the Employer. Thereafter, it was renumbered as Reference (LCR) No. 387 of 2001.

The learned Labour Court, Rajkot passed the award on 30.11.2002 directing the respondent to reinstate the workman in continuous service with 40% backwages and since 60% of the backwages was denied, the petitioner has preferred present petition challenging the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajkot.

Heard Mr. Patel, for Mr. Desai, learned Advocate for the petitioner. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has mainly contended that petitioner has been denied 60% of backwages without any reason. It is further submitted that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. It is therefore, submitted that the judgment and award of the Labour Court may be modified to that extent.

This Court has perused the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajkot. Considering the findings given by the Labour Court, in my opinion, it appears that there is no illegality committed by the Labour Court in passing the impugned judgment and award and directing the respondent to reinstate the workman with continuity of service with 40% backwages. The findings given by Labour Court are just and proper and are not required to be interfered with as Labour Court has given cogent reasons.

In view of above, the petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No order as to costs. Notice discharged.