LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-564

MANAGER Vs. ABIDBHAI SADAKBHAI UMRANI

Decided On March 21, 2017
MANAGER Appellant
V/S
Abidbhai Sadakbhai Umrani Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the award passed by the labour court, Amreli in Reference Case No.49 of 2003, this petition is preferred under Articles 226 &227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The facts leading to this petition are as follow: 2. 1 The petitioner company had engaged the respondent No.1 as a driver. He continued to work with the petitioner company, monthly wages given to him was of Rs. 3450/-(Three Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Only). It is alleged by the petitioner that since he was caught red-handed stealing diesel on 27th January,2003, he never turned up for the Job. According to the respondent, he was terminated illegally without following any procedure. He was given neither notice nor notice pay nor retrenchment compensation. He, therefore, demanded reinstatement by sending notice on 28th March,2003, which was never replied to by the petitioner to him. 2. 2 He approached the labour authority and reference was made to the labour court, Amreli being Reference Case No.49 of 2003. 2. 3 The statement of claim was presented and so was written statement by the present petitioner, where all facts stated in the statement of claim were denied. It was denied that the petitioner had relations of employer and employee with the respondent No.2-workman. It was the say of the petitioner that workman was working with the Shrikon Infrastructure Pvt., Ltd. which is now known as M/s. Parvati Construction and he stopped on his own to report his duty. 2. 4 After availing opportunity to the parties, the terms of reference were adjudicated by the court below and had concluded for an incident of stealing of diesel from the car, the workman was terminated by the petitioner without holding any inquiry. No procedure was followed and therefore, the reference was partly allowed reinstating the respondent workman to his original post with back wages to the tune of 50% for the intervening period.

(3.) This has aggrieved the petitioner and therefore is before this court seeking following reliefs: