FOSROC CHEMICALS INDIA LTD Vs. SATISHBHAI I TAMAKUWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Ms. Kamani for Mr. Pathak, learned advocate waives service of notice of RULE on behalf of respondent. By consent, rule is fixed forthwith at the request of learned advocates for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner first party employer in Reference (LCB) No. 210 of 2000 has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award and order dated 21.8.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.2, Bharuch, whereunder the respondent workman is ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and 10% of the back wages without any costs.

(3.) MS. Kamani, learned advocate for Mr. Pathak for the respondent submitted that the Labour Court has appropriately passed the order of reinstatement and part of back wages taking into consideration all the factors, which were existing at the time of conducting the reference. The letter dated 26.4.2000, which is sought to be heavily relied upon by the employer during this proceedings in the writ petition has not been in fact challenged by the employer as could be seen from the record. The workman has all alone contended that the workman's services were required to be terminated by the employer and hence device was designed, wherein, it was stated that the workman was sought to be transferred to Banglore. The workman, if was liable to transfer to Banglore, then, nothing prevented Management from taking appropriate action against the workman, which would have been faced by the workman appropriately. The award of back wages to the tune of 10% of the back wages can be modified by this Court in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the workman would not deserve even 10% back wages, MS. Kamani along with Mr. Pathak for the workman were fair enough to the quantum of back wages and submitted that the Court may appropriately slash down the amount of back wages in the present case.