KHATAU JUNKER LTD Vs. AJAYKUMAR BACHUBHAI JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVEN as none appears for the respondent, learned advocate Mr. Jigar M Patel appearing with learned senior advocate Mr. K. M. Patel submitted that the petitioner was refusing to accept their letters written for necessary instructions. Being aggrieved by the award and order dated 20. 1. 1998 of Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference (LCB) No. 555 of 1990, the petitioner has invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with the prayers to quash the said award. It appears from the record and the impugned award that the respondent was retrenched on 28. 10. 1987 from his services as Testing Engineer, on the ground that his service was no longer required on account of losses and restructuring of the industry. During the course of hearing before the Labour Court, the petitioner-employer failed to substantiate any ground on which the respondent was retrenched and the Labour Court also found several technical irregularities in the process of retrenching the respondent. Therefore, by the impugned order the respondent was directed to be retrenched with 25% back wages. No reason was made out to take a different view of the facts and the findings of fact recorded in the impugned award by the Labour Court could not be assailed as perverse or illegal.

(2.) ON the other hand, even as the petition was entertained in November, 1998 and ad-interim relief was granted and was confirmed on 24. 4. 2000 on condition that the petitioner shall pay full wages last drawn by the respondent with effect from 20. 1. 1998 subject to the respondent filing an affidavit about his unemployment, none has appeared and there are no instructions from either side as to whether any part of the award or the interim order was implemented or executed. Under the circumstances and in absence of any valid ground for interference with the impugned award, the petition is dismissed, Rule is discharged and interim relief is vacated with no order as to costs.