STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NANJIBHAI MADHABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the State of Gujarat, through the Secretary, Narmada & Water Resources Department, being aggrieved of the judgement and award dated 29th August, 1997 passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No.101 of 1992. The establishment had also filed restoration applications, being Miscellaneous Application Nos.1 of 1998 to 9 of 1998, which were disposed of by an order dated 6th August, 1998.

(2.) Mr.Digant P.Joshi, learned AGP, invited the attention of the Court to the reasons, starting from paragraph 7 of the judgement and award of the Labour Court. He submitted that perusal of paragraphs 7 and 8 will clearly show that the learned Judge has in terms recorded a finding to the effect that, "the respondents-workmen have not proved violation of either Section 25-F or Sections 25-G and 25-H". The learned Judge has also recorded that, "so far as the delay is concerned, no satisfactory explanation is put forward and, therefore, even the delay is not worth condoning". Surprisingly, at the fag end of the hearing, a purshis was given by the respondent-workman on which the learned Advocate representing the Government made an endorsement, "No Objection". The purshis was to the effect that, `if the respondent-workman is granted reinstatement without back-wages, he is willing to accept the same'. The learned Judge passed the order under challenge on the plea that in view of the purshis given by one party, to which the other party has given no objection, the Court is bound to pass an order in terms of that purshis.

(3.) Mr.Digant P.Joshi, learned AGP, submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error in passing the order on the basis of a purshis, on which the learned Advocate representing the Government had made an endorsement, "No objection". He submitted that in fact, the learned Advocate cannot be said to have any authority for such endorsement. Mr.Joshi is not able to point as to whether the Government has taken any action against the learned Advocate for having made an endorsement, "No objection", in a case where the respondent-workman was neither able to prove any of his rights nor was able to prove violation of the provisions of Sections-25(F), 25(G) or 25(H). Mr.Joshi submitted that in view of that the present judgement and award is required to be quashed and set aside.