SHRINATHJI MECHANICAL WORKS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is most unfortunate that the present respondent No. 3 -Anandprasad Bulikhadas Khatri who was working with the present appellant Shrinathji Mechanical Works was illegally retrenched from the employment by the appellant in February 1983, is so far not paid his hard -earned money and is not reinstated in service by the appellant, despite the fact that the poor workman was ordered to be reinstated with back wages with continuity of service by the competent Labour Court by its order dt. 17 -4 -86.

(2.) AGAINST the aforesaid order the appellant preferred Civil Misc. Application which also came to be dismissed by the Labour Court on 10 - 10 -86. Against the said order writ petition was filed before this Court which also came to be dismissed by this Court on 25 -6 -87. Thereafter, in an application before the Payment of Wages Authorities an award of Rs. 48,800/ - was passed and the appellant was ordered to pay court fee stamp of Rs. 4,880/ - to be deposited with the State Government within 30 days from the date of the order, which was passed on 29 -12 -88. The appellant has not paid said amount also. Therefore, recovery certificate for Rs. 53,680/ - was issued by the Collector, Ahmedabad.

(3.) HOWEVER , in spite of these facts, the appellant neither reinstated the respondent No. 3 nor paid the said amount to respondent No. 3 though he was running a factory. This Court in Spl. C. A. Nos. 7087/88 and 5245/85 directed the Col lector, Ahmedabad to recover the dues of respondent No. 3. Therefore, a notice was issued under the Land Revenue Code against the appellant against which the appellant filed Civil Suit No. 114/91 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad and without disclosing true facts, obtained an ex parte injunction from the City Civil Court on Notice of Motion Exhs. 6 and 7. The learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad who had earlier granted ex parte injunction, dismissed the Notice of Motion and vacated the ex parte ad interim injunction granted by him earlier with costs, when the above facts were brought to his notice. The learned Chamber Judge observed in his impugned order that the plaintiff -present appellant has not approached the court with clean hands and therefore, dismissed the Notice of Motion. Even on merits, the learned Judge held against the plaintiff -present appellant and observed that "the plaintiff has neither got a prima facie case nor the balance of convenience is in his favour". The learned Judge also observed that the appellant should not be allowed to raise any technical defence at this stage when a poor workman is not getting his hard earned money from such a mighty employer who, under one or the other pretext rushed to the Court of law and tried to stall the payment to be made to the workman -respondent No. 3.