CHANDRASINH DAHYABHAI SODHAPARMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the outset, it is required to be mentioned that an endeavour was made to get the matter adjourned on one pretext or the other. Mr. Vyas sought time in the morning stating that Mr. Brahmbhatt is appearing before another court other than High Court. This matter has been time and again adjourned on one ground or the other. The termination is of the year 1995 and almost 17 years have passed thereafter. Therefore this Court is not inclined to grant any further adjournment.

(2.) THE petitioner herein has prayed to quash and set aside the award dated 11.10.2010 passed by Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (LCG) No. 251 of 1997 whereby the reference was rejected.

(3.) MR . Vyas, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Brahmbhatt for the petitioner submitted that the Labur Court ought to have appreciated that the statements of depot clerks were not recorded in presence of the petitioner and that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross examine them during inquiry. He submitted that the respondent authorities did not give ample time to submit his reply and therefore the petitioner did not get sufficient time and opportunity to defend his case. He also submitted that the charges of misappropriation and unauthorized absence are not proved and therefore the penalty imposed is grossly disproportionate.