GAJENDRA TIMBER MART Vs. MAFATBHAI ASHABHAI TALPADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following prayer:-

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.Shakti Jadeja appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is required to be set aside since the respondent-workman has in fact not disclosed the correct fact that the Unit, in which he was working, was closed in 2011 and hence, the impugned order should not have been passed.

(3.) Since the respondent-workman was illegally terminated from service on 19/1/1998, he raised an industrial dispute which culminated in Reference (LCA) No.56 of 1998. It is pertinent to note that vide award dtd. 30/5/2012 passed by the Labour Court, Anand in the said reference proceedings, the petitioner was directed to treat the respondent- workman as continuous in service and give him all the consequential benefits within a period of 30 days after reinstating him in service.