NAVIN FLUORINE INDUSTRIES Vs. BABUBHAI KASHIRAM RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Senior advocate Mr. K.S. Nanavati with Mr. K.D. Gandhi on behalf of the petitioner and learned advocate Mrs. Sangeeta N Pahwa on behalf of the respondent workman. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Surat in Reference (LCS) No. 811/1999 dtd. 02.06.2000 wherein dismissal order dtd. 18.03.1999 has been set aside by the Labour Court and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman on his original post with full back wages with continuity of service within 30 days from the date of publication of the award.

(2.) In the present petition, RULE and ad-interim relief has been granted by this Court on 12.07.2000. On behalf of the respondent, affidavit-in-reply has been filed.

(3.) Learned Senior advocate Mr. K.S. Nanavati with learned advocate Mr. K.D. Gandhi appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that respondent workman was dismissed from service by the petitioner on 18.03.1999. That dismissal order has been produced by the petitioner at Annexure 'A' page 23. Against the dismissal order, respondent workman raised the Industrial Dispute which ultimately referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Surat as Reference (LCS) No. 811/1999. Before the Labour Court, respondent workman has filed statement of claim and written statement was submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent has filed application on preliminary points for consideration vide Exh. 6 on 13.01.2000. Against that, reply has been submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, on 18.02.2000 vide Exh.11, the respondent workman has filed affidavit accepting the averments made in application Exh.6 as true. The petitioner has filed detailed reply against application Exh.6 on 24.02.2000. Thereafter, Exh.11 application which was filed by the respondent workman, the Court has asked the question to the petitioner whether petitioner wants to cross examine the respondent workman or not. At that occasion, a detailed objection has been given by the petitioner on 09.03.2000 and on the same day, after giving that application, another application was given by the petitioner that the matter is pending at the stage of preliminary point and that is required to be decided. As both the parties agreed to that application, therefore, at this juncture, petitioner has not cross examined the respondent workman against application Exh.11. Thereafter, Labour Court has passed the award.