SUSHI GANESH PANDIT Vs. SHREEJI CONCAST LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties, when the matter is taken up for interim relief, the main matter itself is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the service of the petitioner was terminated by the respondent for which dispute came to be raised by the petitioner, and the same ultimately came to be referred to the Labour Court being Reference (LCB) No.14/2001. Thereafter, it appears that the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat on 3-11-2001 and before the Lok Adalat, a settlement purshis was submitted which was signed by the representative of the petitioner, but it was not signed by the petitioner himself. So far as the respondent is concerned, the same was signed by the respondent as well as the representative of the respondent. The Labour Court acted upon the said settlement and passed the award in terms of the settlement. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted application for restoration being Misc. Application No.18/2002 in Reference (LCB) No.14/2001, which ultimately came to be rejected as per the order dated 16-8-2003 passed by the Labour Court and, therefore, under these circumstances, the present petition.

(3.) Heard Mr.Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Gori, learned Counsel for the respondent.