DILIPKUMAR NANDLAL PATEL Vs. DIRECTOR/MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS group of matters contain common facts and therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 5880 of 2010 is workman, whereas, petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 10393 of 2010 is employer. Both these petitioners have challenged by way of these petitions the judgment and award dated 21.11.2009 passed in Complaint Application No. 1 of 1994 (Reference (Demand) No. 9 of 1986) for their respective reasons. The Civil Application No. 9554 of 2012 is taken out by the applicant workman for seeking appropriate directions as the matters was not being heard. The Civil Application was clubbed together and all the matters are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. Facts in brief leading to file these petitions deserve to be set out as under:

(3.) LEARNED advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the document on record of this petition, though are not forming part of the record before the Court, wherein, impugned order was passed, none -the -less be looked into for appreciating that the employer did his best in substantially complying with the provisions of law. The retrenchment compensation is offered, leave wages were offered and there was an agreement that the retrenchment simplicitor was there about so called agreement which amount will not be subject matter of any challenge. The fact that the workman in fact discharged his responsibility as Corporator is also read at large and collective consideration of all these factors may be appreciated by the court so as to do substantial justice as, sustaining the order would amount to give premium to the petitioner workman, admittedly was working as Corporator contrary to service rules and who also admitted irregularities touching upon the financial aspect. Thus, in view of this, the petition of the employer be accepted.