PAREKH ENTERPRISES Vs. VINODBHAI MAGANBHAI PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Dave for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Bhatt for the respondent No.1 in each petition.

(2.) During the course of hearing of the petitions, learned advocate Mr. Dave repeatedly submitted that the petitioner was and is always agreeable to reinstate the respondent No.1 to provide him the work at the place where the petitioner has contract. When put to learned advocate Dave, that when such is the award of reinstatement and when the petitioner is ready to reinstate the respondent No.1 at the place where it has contract, there is no challenge to the part of the award for reinstatement of respondent No.1, Mr. Dave fairly stated that it could be said that there is no such challenge as the respondent No.1 shall be reinstated at the place where the petitioner has contract. In view of this, the challenge which remains in the petitions is to the award for grant of 20% back wages with other incidental benefits flowing from continuous service of the respondent No.1

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Dave has taken the Court to the statement of claim of the respondent No.1 and the reply of the petitioner and also the evidence of respondent No.1 to submit that the petitioner could not have been held liable for payment of back wages.