MANOR INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED Vs. HARIBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a limited company has challenged award dated 13th November, 1998 passed by the learned Labour Court, Nadiad in reference (LCN) No. 202/1992, thereby the learned Labour Court has partly allowed the said Reference and directed the petitioner Company to reinstate the respondent workman and to pay 75% of backwages.

(2.) AT the outset, it deserves to be mentioned that at or around the time when present petition was filed, a company petition praying for winding up of the Company was pending in the Court and subsequently the said company petition came to be admitted. This Court is informed during the hearing of present petition that Official Liquidator attached to Gujarat High Court has been put in possession of the assets of the company and the proceedings of the company petition and collateral company applications are pending in this Court.

(3.) SO far as the facts involved in present petition are concerned, it comes out from the record that the respondent herein claimed that he was in the employment of the petitioner Company since 25th August, 1984 and was working as Machine Attendant. His salary was Rs. 2854. 00 and that he, along with certain other workmen of the Company, decided to contest elections in 1992 and the petitioner Company, taking shelter of his action of filling up nomination form, terminated his services w. e. f. 28th April, 1992 without following any procedure prescribed by law. He, therefore, raised industrial dispute which culminated into Reference (LCN)No. 202/1992. In the said proceedings he filed his statement of claim praying for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. His claim was opposed by the petitioner Company and somewhere in the year 1995 the petitioner Company filed its written statement and opposed the relief prayed for by the workman. During the proceeding before the learned labour Court, the deposition of the respondent herein was recorded below exh. 20 and on behalf of the petitioner Company one Mr. K. V. Patel was examined as witness and his deposition was recorded below Exh. 28. Subsequently, upon considering the submissions of the contesting parties, learned Labour Court passed the impugned award dated 13th November, 1988. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner Company is before this Court.