MOHOMAD ARIF AND CO Vs. GEETABEN MARUTIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner employer has prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dtde.4/1/2003 passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Recovery Application No.1305 of 1992, by which the learned Labour Court has allowed the said application submitted by the respondent under sec.33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, directing the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.77,419=80 petitioners towards overtime, leave etc. It appears that at the relevant time, the case on behalf of the petitioner was that the respondent was never employed by the petitioner employer and the status of the respondent workman was yet to be decided in Reference (LCA) No.1705 of 1992. It appears that considering the above, the learned Single Judge admitted the present petition. Today, when the present petition is taken up for hearing, it is reported that the Reference (LCA) No.1705 of 1992 is already decided and disposed of by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad by the Judgement and Award dtd.23/9/2005 and it is specifically held that the respondent workman was the employee of the petitioner employer and and consequently the Labour Court has passed the order directing the petitioner employer to reinstate the respondent workman with 60% back-wages with continuity of service. It is reported by Mr.U.T. Mishra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent workman that the said Judgement and Award dtd.23/9/2005 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.1705 of 1992 is not challenged by the petitioner employer. In view of the above, the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent was never employed by the petitioner and therefore the Labour Court ought not to have passed the impugned order, has no substance and the same cannot be accepted. It has been specifically held by the Labour Court in Reference (LCA) No.1705 of 1992 that the respondent herein was the employee of the petitioner herein. No other submissions have been made by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner employer. In view of the aforesaid subsequent development, present petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated forthwith. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.