Gujarat High Court
President Indo German Tool Room ... vs General Manager Indo German Tool Room & on 8 December, 2014
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt
Bench: S.R.Brahmbhatt
C/SCA/17333/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17333 of 2014
======================================
PRESIDENT INDO GERMAN TOOL ROOM EMPLOYEES
UNION....Petitioner
Versus
GENERAL MANAGER INDO GERMAN TOOL ROOM &
1....Respondents
======================================
Appearance:
MR K R MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date : 08/12/2014
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner, the Employee's Union, has approached this Court by way of this petition filed under Articles226 and 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order and award dated 13rd February 2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, CGIT, Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (CGITA) No.162 of 2012.
2. The facts in brief leading to filing of this petition as could be indicated thus.
The workmen through union raised dispute qua action of appointing seven workmen on the post of helper despite their application for the post of semiskilled worker and they being interviewed for the post. The Court after recording the reasoning rejected the reference vide order and award dated 13th February 2014, which is a subject matter of challenge before this Court.
Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/17333/2014 ORDER3. Learned advocate for the workmen, contended that the Recruitment Rules applicable for the post of semiskilled worker and the advertisement pursuant whereof, the workmen appeared before the interview committee and the same which was meant for selecting workmen for the post of semiskilled worker are clear indication to suggest that the workmen, who have selected ought not have been appointed on the earlier post of helper. It is a different fact that the workmen after passage of time did earn two promotions, but their grievance remained qua their initial appointment being that of only helper, which was one stage lower than the post for which they applied and interviewed. This being an illegal proposition, the same should have been appreciated by the Court.
4. Learned advocate for the workmen, further contended that the Court accepted the say of employer only on the basis of the written statement and the deposition of the management witnesses. The requisite documentary evidences were not produced on record and therefore, the reasoning adopted by the Court for rejecting the reference was not tenable in eye of law.
5. This Court is of the considered view that this petition is required to be dismissed in limine for the following reasons.
(i) The Court has setout the schedule in terms of reference, which reads as under : "Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Indo German Tool Room, Ahmedabad in appointing Shri Hasmukh Solanki, Kiran G. Chavda, Dilip Asoda, Ramanlal Kharadi, Prabhat Damodar, S.T.Bhagora and Dinesh K. Ninama on the lower post than the one applied and interviewed for and demand Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/17333/2014 ORDER of the Union for all the benefits from the date of appointment is justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled for ?"
(ii) The Court has raised the following points to be determined as issues.
(i) Is the reference maintainable ?
(ii) Has the Union/2nd party valid cause of action ?
(iii) Whether the workmanShri Hasmukh Solanki,
Kiran G. Chavada, Dilip Asoda, Ramanlal Kharadi, Prabhat Damodar, S.T.Bhagora and Dinesh K. Ninama are entitled for their respective appointment from the dates in the position of semiskilled worker, for which they had applied and interviewed for ?
(iv) Whether the action of the management of general manager Indo German Tool Room, Ahmedabad in appointing them on the lower post of Helper than the one applied and interviewed for is justified ?
(v) Whether the demand of Union (2nd party) for giving all the benefits to them (seven Workmen) from the date of appointment is justified ?
(vi) Whether the Union/2 nd party / workman are entitled to the relief as claimed ?
(iii) The Court has recorded its finding after taking into consideration all the material on record including the testimony of the witnesses and the reasoning recorded by the Court in paragraph nos.7 Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/17333/2014 ORDER and 8 in respect of the competence of the selection committee to recommend the candidate's candidature for lower post than the one for which the interview was conducted as a factor, which was weighed with the Court for rejecting the reference.
(iv) This Court is unable to accept the submission canvassed on behalf of the petitioner at the bar that the Court could not have relied upon the testimony of the witnesses and the written statement. As in absence of any specific challenge to the say of the witness qua the competence of the selection committee for recommending the candidates' candidature for the post lower than the interviewed, there cannot be any dispute that the candidate, who was yet to be received an employment has a right to reject the same. The petitioner's advocate is not wholly unjustified in submitting that the weaker section of the workmen would have interalia no choice but to accept the appointment for the post, which is lower than the post for which they were interviewed. But, that in itself is not a ground as to condone the factum of accepting of a job without demur. Infact, the Court has taken pain in clearly observing that there was absolutely no objection raised on behalf of the workmen when they accepted the offer of appointment to the lower post than the post on which their candidature being considered.
5. In this view of the matter, the reasoning adopted by the Court for rejecting the reference being absolutely just and proper. The same is not required to be interfered with in any manner. As a result thereof, the petition fails and therefore, it is accordingly rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) Rathod...
Page 4 of 4