STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MINAXIBEN MANGALAL UNDKAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.I.M. Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioner State and Mr.Anshin H.Desai, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The State, being aggrieved by the Award dtd.11/1/200 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCJ) No.104 of 1994, is before this Court with a submission that the court below was not justified in answering the Reference in favour of the respondent workman.

(3.) During the course of the arguments, Mr.Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State, referring to para 3 of the additional affidavit submitted that the Rural Road Project was working during the period between 1988 and 1996 and that thereafter, the project is over. He further read that after passing the order by the High Court on 24/1/2001, no recruitment for the post of Typist or Clerk was made. On being persuaded by this statement, I asked Mr.Desai, learned counsel for the respondent workman that if the project is over in 1996, how can any benefit be given to the workman, Mr.Desai submitted that the affidavit is an eyewash and it tries to raise a plea which was never raised before the Labour Court and was never the defence of the present petitioner. Shocked and Surprised, when I asked Mr.Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader as to why the affidavit was read into service, Mr.Pandya, simply said that the State was required to file this affidavit in view of the interim order dtd.24/1/2001.