Gujarat High Court
M/S.Indo German Tool Room vs Dinesh Chandulal Vasava on 1 November, 2023
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19645/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/11/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19645 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
M/S.INDO GERMAN TOOL ROOM
Versus
DINESH CHANDULAL VASAVA & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PC MASTER(446) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR BN DOCTOR(310) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JOY MATHEW(448) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 01/11/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Joy Mathew for the petitioner and learned advocate Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 03 20:38:46 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19645/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/11/2023 undefined Mr. U.T.Mishra for respondent No.1.
2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"25.A. Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the Award passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal on 17/11/2014 in Reference No. CGITA No. 115/2007 and be pleased to declare that concerned trainee Shri Vasava was a Trainee and not a regular worker or workman of the petitioner.
B. Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the Order passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner on 25/05/2015.
C. Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief or reliefs as may be deem just and proper under circumstances of the case.
26.A. Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant interim relief staying further operation and execution of the award dated 17/11/2014 and order direction of Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) dated Page 2 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 03 20:38:46 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19645/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/11/2023 undefined 25/05/2015 at Annexure A & B. B. Any of the relief which the Hon'ble Court deem just and fit may be granted in the interest of justice."
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
3.1 The respondent was appointed as a trainee-workman by Memorandum dated 17.08.1995 and thereafter, the petitioner gave extension to the respondent by orders dated 27.02.1996, 19.08.1996, 04.03.1997, 30.08.1997 and 07.12.1997.
3.2 According to the petitioner, on completion of the training, the respondent was automatically relieved as trainee.
3.3 The respondent being aggrieved, preferred reference under the provisions Page 3 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 03 20:38:46 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19645/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/11/2023 undefined of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 ['ID Act' for short] before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad [CGIT] being Reference No. 115/2007.
3.4 The CGIT, after taking oral and documentary evidence, vide Judgement and Award dated 27.08.2015 held that there is a violation of the provisions of section 25F of the ID Act and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-
workman with 50% backwages from the date of raising the dispute.
4. It is not in dispute that the respondent-workman is reinstated by order dated 17.11.2015. It is not in dispute that by order dated 27.02.2015, the Page 4 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 03 20:38:46 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19645/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/11/2023 undefined petitioner has complied with the Judgement and Award passed by the CGIT by reinstating the respondent as per the terms and conditions of the training dated 17.08.1995.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Mathew submitted that the respondent was never appointed as a helper as sought to be canvassed before the CGIT and he was relieved from the service on completion of training. It was submitted that it was a mistake on the part of the petitioner that the training period was continued even after the completion of extended period of six months as per the terms of Memorandum of Appointment dated 17.08.1995. It was submitted that the petitioner ought not to have continued the respondent as a trainee after 17.08.1996. It was submitted that Page 5 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 03 20:38:46 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19645/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/11/2023 undefined however, the petitioner has shown a grace to the respondent to complete the training. It is further pointed out that the respondent has applied for the post of helper with the petitioner-organization even after the training was over in the year 2000 and the reference was filed in the year 2007, much after the respondent was relieved in the year 1998 as trainee. It was further submitted that the CGIT has committed an error in allowing the reference by relying upon the explanation given by the respondent that he had approached the Commission of Minority in the year 2005 wherein, the petitioner has filed reply and accordingly, dispute was held to be a live dispute and delay was not considered as an impediment for the purpose of deciding the reference. It was Page 6 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 03 20:38:46 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19645/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/11/2023 undefined submitted that the CGIT ought not to have entertained the reference on account of delay.
6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Mishra submitted that the respondent- workman has been reinstated on his original post of trainee in the year 2015 and he is continuing as such with the petitioner-organization but the petitioner is paying him fixed pay of more than Rs. 23,000/- per month. It was submitted that in view of the fact that the award was already complied with in February,2015 whereas the petition is filed in November, 2015, the petition should not be entertained to the prejudice of the respondent-workman.
7. Considering the above submission, it Page 7 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 03 20:38:46 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19645/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/11/2023 undefined is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed this petition after complying with the impugned Judgement and Award and therefore, without going into the merits of the same, the petition is not entertained as the Award which is challenged in the petition has already been complied with. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) JYOTI V. JANI Page 8 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 03 20:38:46 IST 2023