Gujarat High Court
Ralchem Limited vs Ajit Balakrishna Kadu + Three Employees ... on 7 July, 2014
Author: Ks Jhaveri
Bench: Ks Jhaveri, A.G.Uraizee
C/LPA/909/2011 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 909 of 2011
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16172 of 2003
================================================================
RALCHEM LIMITED....Appellant(s)
Versus
AJIT BALAKRISHNA KADU + THREE EMPLOYEES & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
(MR HASMUKH THAKKER), ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PALAK H THAKKAR, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS NISHA THAKORE AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 07/07/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) By way of present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 16172 of 2003, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition and directed the Labour Court, Bharuch to decide pending Reference in respect of four respondent workmen.
Brief facts of the present appeal are that on Page 1 of 3 C/LPA/909/2011 ORDER 10/1/2002, a settlement under section 2(p) was arrived at between the appellant and Rasayanik Kamdar Sangh. Under the said settlement, 94 workmen including four respondent workmen received the benefits towards the voluntary retirement scheme. On 15/1/2002, four respondent workmen tendered application for voluntary retirement form the service of the appellant and the same was accepted by the appellant. The appellant issued service certificate to four respondent workmen on 16/1/2002. On 15/1/2002, Dy. Labour Commissioner, Baroda refused to refer the dispute of charter of demand of the Union of which four respondent workmen were members, in respect of wage revision and others in view of the settlement dated 10/1/2001. Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Bharuch referred the dispute in respect of four respondent workmen to the Labour Court on 31/7/2003. The appellant filed writ petition being SCA No. 16172 of 2003 challenging the order dated 31/7/2003, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Bharuch on 17/11/2003. By order dated 18/11/2003, learned Single Judge issued Rule in SCA no. 16172 of 2003 and stayed the order of reference, which was confirmed by the learned Single Judge on 12/8/2004. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant on 29/4/2011, hence, this appeal.
Learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.M.Patel with learned counsel Mr. Palak Thakkar appearing for the appellant states that the VRS of four workmen is accepted by the appellant and therefore there is no existence of Page 2 of 3 C/LPA/909/2011 ORDER employee employer relationship between the appellant and workman and hence the question of referring any dispute for adjudication does not arise.
We have heard learned counsels appearing for the appellant and learned AGP Ms. Nisha Thakore on behalf of the respondent State. Though served none appears on behalf of the respondents workmen.
Considering the submission of learned counsel Mr. Patel, we are of the opinion that since the parties have arrived at settlement and respondents have taken advantage, therefore, no reference ought to have been made. The reference made by the Government is required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The order of the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (A.G.URAIZEE,J) *asma Page 3 of 3