Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Maheshbhai Navalshankar Pandya on 18 September, 2014
Author: Paresh Upadhyay
Bench: Paresh Upadhyay
C/SCA/11717/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11717 of 2014
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5166 of 2014
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2262 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see YES
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the NO
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as NO
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO
==============================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ...Petitioner
Versus
MAHESHBHAI NAVALSHANKAR PANDYA
C/o. VINAYAK KARMACHARI MANDAL RAJKOT
AND OTHERS ...Respondents
==============================================================
Appearance:
[For appearance refer to Paras:4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of this judgment]
On behalf of the Petitioner - Corporation
Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned senior advocate
Page 1 of 20
C/SCA/11717/2014 JUDGMENT
with Mr.Hemang Shah
Mr.H.S.Munshaw, Advocate
Mr.G.M.Joshi, Advocate
Mr.Hardik Rawal, Advocate
Ms. Sejal Mandavia, Advocate
On behalf of the Respondent - Union / Workmen
Mr.D.S.Vasavda, Advocate
Mr.Mukesh Rathod, Advocate
Mr.Prabhakar Upadhyay, Advocate
Mr.Murli Devnani, Advocate
Mr.Kishor M. Paul, Advocate
Mr.P.P.Majmudar, Advocate
Mr.Krutarth Pandya, Advocate
Ms.Lopa Bhatt for Mr.Mahendra Trivedi, Advocate
Mr.Mahendra K. Patel, Advocate
Mr.Samir B. Gohil, Advocate
==============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
Date : 18/09/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Challenge in these petitions is made by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation to the identical awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal, granting benefit of time scale to the Page 2 of 20 C/SCA/11717/2014 JUDGMENT workmen, with retrospective effect, from the date as claimed by them, purportedly flowing from the settlement between the Management and the Union in that regard, more particularly clause-20 of the said settlement. The details of the impugned awards are as under.
2.1 In Special Civil Application No. 11717 of 2014, challenge is made to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No.252 of 2012 dated 14.03.2014.
2.2 In Special Civil Application No.5166 of 2014, challenge is made to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No. 40 of 2011 dated 08.08.2013.
2.3 In Special Civil Application No.2262 of 2013, challenge is made to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) No.172 of 2002 dated 14.10.2011.
3. The relevant facts of each petition are as under.
3.1 So far the facts of Special Civil Application No. 11717 of 2014 are concerned, the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot has granted time scale to the concerned workman with retrospective effect vide its award dated 14.03.2014 recorded on Reference (IT) No.252 of 2012. The respondent had joined as the Badli Conductor on 12.10.1996 and considering the availability of sanctioned vacant post and inter-se seniority, he was taken on the time scale by the Corporation [Rajkot Division], with effect from 11.02.2000. The workman approached the Tribunal in the year 2012 and the Tribunal has granted the time scale with retrospective effect of the year 1997 i.e. on completion of 180 Page 3 of 20 C/SCA/11717/2014 JUDGMENT days service, considering 12.10.1996 as the initial date of appointment. This benefit is given with arrears and not notionally.
3.2 So far the facts of Special Civil Application No.5166 of 2014 are concerned, the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot has granted time scale to the concerned workman with retrospective effect vide its award dated 08.08.2013 recorded on Reference (IT) No. 40 of 2011. The respondent had joined as the Badli Conductor on 17.12.1996 and considering the availability of sanctioned vacant post and inter-se seniority, he was taken on the time scale by the Corporation [Junagadh Division] with effect from 29.12.2007. The workman approached the Tribunal in the year 2011 and the Tribunal has granted the time scale with retrospective effect of the year 1997 i.e. on completion of 180 days service, considering 17.12.1996 as the initial date of appointment. This benefit is given with arrears and not notionally.
3.3 So far the facts of Special Civil Application No.2262 of 2013 are concerned, the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad has granted time scale to the concerned 11 workmen, whose details are mentioned in para:2 of the award, with retrospective effect, vide its award dated 14.10.2011 recorded on Reference (IT) No.172 of 2002. They are conductors and drivers. Their initial date of appointment as Badli workers was between the year 1981 to 1987 (details in the table in para:2 of the award). The Corporation [Palanpur Division] had granted time scale to them considering the availability of sanctioned vacant posts and inter-se seniority of the workman in the respective cadre, as per its policy, between the year 1984 to Page 4 of 20 C/SCA/11717/2014 JUDGMENT 1996 (details in the table in para:2 of the award). This was challenged by the concerned workmen before the Tribunal by this Reference in the year 2002. The Tribunal has granted benefit of time scale on completion of 180 days service, which in substance, is with the retrospective effect of about three decades from the date of award, and about two decades from the date of grievance made by them. The Tribunal, however, has granted notional benefit.
4.1 The above numbered three petitions, and a group of about 64 other petitions, with identical point at issue as recorded in para:1 above, are listed for hearing before this Court today. Of this, in about 60 matters respondents are served. Those matters are taken up for final hearing today. For convenience, these three petitions are treated to be lead matters, and all the arguments of all the learned advocates are reflected and dealt with in this judgment. For this reason, in this judgment, the arguments of even those learned advocates are recorded and dealt with, who may not be appearing in any of these three petitions, but are appearing in other matters in this group of petitions. There is agreement between the learned advocates to the extent that, this judgment would govern those petitions also, which are listed for hearing today, in which the point at issue is as recorded in para:1 above.
4.2 On behalf of the Corporation, Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned senior advocate with Mr.Hemang Shah, and Mr.H.S.Munshaw, Mr.G.M.Joshi, Mr.Hardik Rawal, Ms. Sejal Mandavia, learned advocates have addressed the Court at length.
4.3 On behalf of the Union / Workmen, arguments are made by learned advocates Mr.D.S.Vasavda, Mr.Mukesh Rathod, Page 5 of 20 C/SCA/11717/2014 JUDGMENT Mr.Prabhakar Upadhyay, Mr.Murli Devnani, Mr.Kishor M. Paul, Mr.P.P.Majmudar, Mr.Krutarth Pandya, Ms.Lopa Bhatt for Mr.Mahendra Trivedi, Mr.Mahendra K. Patel and Mr.Samir B. Gohil.
4.4 Special Civil Application No.2262 of 2013 was admitted by this Court vide order dated 27.02.2013. Special Civil Application No.11717 of 2014 and Special Civil Application No.5166 of 2014 are at admission stage. Mr.Krutarth Pandya, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of the contesting respondent workmen in these two petitions.
5. Learned advocates for the Corporation have jointly submitted as under.
5.1 The Corporation and the Workers' Union had entered into a settlement. Clause:20 of the said settlement provides that, the case of a daily wager shall be considered for being taken on the regular time scale, after completion of 180 days as a daily wager, keeping in view the availability of confirmed vacant posts of the respective cadre. It is submitted that there is further stipulation that, the said consideration would be on the basis of the inter-se seniority of such daily wagers. It is submitted that, thus there are three fold stipulations under the said policy.
5.2 It is further submitted that, on one hand the respondent workman claimed benefit under the above referred Clause-20 of the settlement, and on the other hand he had asserted before the Tribunal that, on completion of 180 days as a daily wager, he ought to have been granted time scale. This assertion is accepted by the Tribunal as it is. It is submitted Page 6 of 20 C/SCA/11717/2014 JUDGMENT that, while doing so, the Tribunal has considered, as if there was only one stipulation in the said settlement, that as and when the concerned workman completes 180 days as a daily wager, he is entitled to claim the regular time scale. It is submitted that, this finding of the Tribunal is based on misreading of Clause:20 of the settlement, since, out of the three stipulations, it considered only one stipulation. It is submitted that, the impugned award of the Tribunal is thus illegal and the same be quashed and set aside.
5.3 On behalf of the Corporation it is further submitted that, not only the claim of the workmen was inconsistent with the settlement itself, even it lacked bona fide because in most of the cases there was inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the workmen to move the Tribunal. Attention of this Court is invited to a glaring aspect that though the claim was made with retrospective effect ranging from the year 1990 to 2010, most of the References were made in or around the year 2012. It is submitted that, it is still a mystery as to what happened in or around the year 2012 that even the claimant of 1995 and 2008 all rushed to the Tribunal, which the Tribunal has readily accepted. It is submitted that, even if this aspect is not gone into in detail, the concerned workman had atleast disentitled himself from claiming arrears of wages. It is submitted that, on this additional ground also, the impugned awards be quashed and set aside.
5.4 Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court (Coram:
Honourable Ms.Justice R.M.Doshit, as Her Lordship then was) recorded on Special Civil Application No.10974 to 10976 of 1993 dated 20.09.2004 in the case of Gujarat State Road Page 7 of 20 C/SCA/11717/2014 JUDGMENT Transport Corporation vs. S.T. Workers' Union, as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1544 of 2005 vide order dated 13.12.2005. Reliance is also placed on the judgments of Honourable the Supreme Court of India in the cases of (i) Chandigarh Administration vs. Jagjit Singh reported in (1995) 1 SCC 745, and (ii) State of Bihar vs. Upendra Narayan Singh reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65.
5.5 It is submitted that, the impugned awards of the Tribunal be quashed and set aside since they are inconsistent with the very clause of the settlement under which the benefit was claimed for by the concerned workman.
6. Mr.D.S.Vasavda, learned advocate for the Union -
workmen has submitted that, according to him, the reading of Clause-20 of the settlement in question is that, there is only one stipulation that the concerned workman should have completed 180 days as a daily wager. It is submitted that, it is not in dispute that the concerned workman had completed 180 days and therefore the Tribunal has rightly granted the benefit as claimed by the workman. It is submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of this Court (Coram: Honourable Mr.Justice Y.B.Bhatt, as His Lordship then was) recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 dated 27.01.2000 in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Bharatkumar Jashwantlal Rao. Attention of this Court is invited to the subsequent orders passed by this Court following the said decision in Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000, and further that the few of the said orders are also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. It is therefore submitted that, this Court may not interfere in the relief which is granted by Page 8 of 20 C/SCA/11717/2014 JUDGMENT the Tribunal.
7. In this group of petitions, other learned advocates for the Union / Workmen, [other than Mr.D.S.Vasavda, learned advocate] have taken altogether different line of argument. Learned advocates Mr.Mukesh Rathod, Mr.Prabhakar Upadhyay, Mr.Murli Devnani, Mr.Kishor M. Paul, Mr.P.P.Majmudar, Mr.Krutarth Pandya, Ms.Lopa Bhatt for Mr.Mahendra Trivedi, and Mr.Mahendra K. Patel have taken the line of argument that, true it is, that the concerned workman need to meet with all the three stipulations of the said clause- 20 of the settlement i.e. (i) completion of 180 days as a daily wager, (ii) availability of confirmed vacant posts, and (iii) inter- se seniority of the concerned workman, however all these conditions are satisfied in the case of these workmen. It is submitted that, so far the first stipulation with regard to completion of 180 days service is concerned, the same is not in dispute. It is submitted that so far other two aspects i.e. availability of confirmed vacant posts and inter-se seniority are concerned, these are the aspects for which the Management should have pointed out that there were no confirmed vacant posts and further that had the benefit been granted to these workmen, it would have violated inter-se seniority. It is submitted that, the Management failed to do so, and thus resultantly all the three conditions stood satisfied. It is submitted that, it is under these circumstances, that this Court may not interfere in the relief granted by the Tribunal.
8. Without prejudice to the above contention, all the learned advocates for the Union / Workmen have alternatively submitted that, if not with arrears, atleast notional benefit be Page 9 of 20 C/SCA/11717/2014 JUDGMENT given to the concerned workmen.
9. Additionally, Mr.Mukesh Rathod, learned advocate for the Union has vehemently raised the point of discrimination. It is submitted that, in some cases, the Tribunal has granted notional benefit and not the actual benefit. It is submitted that, in such cases, the same is not challenged by the Corporation. It is submitted that, in some cases, the actual benefit granted by the Tribunal is modified by this Court into notional benefit. It is submitted that, in some cases, though the workmen are similarly situated, the award is not challenged at all. In this regard, attention of the Court is invited to the order recorded by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) No.49 of 2002 which concerned 81 workmen. It is submitted that thus, whether to challenge the award or not, even that decision is taken arbitrarily by the Corporation and that factor may also be taken into consideration.
10. On behalf of the Union / Workmen reliance is placed on the following authorities.
(i) decision of this Court (Honourable Mr.Justice Y.B.Bhatt [as His Lordship then was,] ) recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs Bharatkumar Jaswantlal Rao dated 27.01.2000;
(ii) decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs Bharatkumar Jaswantlal Rao recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.905 of 2000 dated 12.03.2001;
(iii) decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Page 10 of 20 C/SCA/11717/2014 JUDGMENT Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Bhanubhai Dhurabhai Patel recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.2748 of 2010 dated 21.02.2011;
(iv) decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sukhubha Vilubha Gohil recorded on Special Civil Application No.9389 of 2005 and cognate matter, dated 06.07.2011;
(v) decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Prakashbhai M. Brahmbhatt recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.988 of 2010 dated 30.08.2010;
(vi) decision of this Court in the case of Divisional Controller vs Pravinchandra Manilal Bhatt recorded on Special Civil Application No.12179 of 2002 dated 03.02.2012;
(vii) decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. V.K. Parmar recorded on Special Civil Application No.2416 of 2011 dated 28.03.2012;
(viii) decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs Gulamdastgir N Pathan recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.328 of 2011 dated 22.02.2011;
(ix) decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Natubhai B Parmar recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.2987 of 2010 dated 07.02.2011;
(x) decision of this Court in the case of Deputy Executive
Page 11 of 20
C/SCA/11717/2014 JUDGMENT
Engineer vs. Babubhai Barsibhai Gamit c/o. Surat Labour Union recorded on Special Civil Application No.2015 of 2001 and cognate matters, dated 28.07.2010;
(xi) decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport vs. Workmen of the S T Corporation recorded on Special Civil Application No. 9223 of 1998; dated 24.03.1999;
(xii) decision of this Court in the case of Divisional Controller vs. Thomasbhai K. Parmar recorded on Special Civil Application No.12171 of 2002, dated 26.04.2012;
(xiii) decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. G.S.Mahadik recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.2909 of 2010, dated 18.04.2011;
(ixv) decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Divisional Controller vs. Kheda Division S.T. Employees' Union recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.2787 of 2010, dated 16.12.2010;
(xv) decision in the case of Gujarat Housing Board vs. Meenakshiben Bhanushankar Bhatt reported in 2002 (2) GLH 324;
(xvi) decision in the case of O.N.G.C. vs. Workmen, Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union reported in 2002 (1) GLH 331;
(xvii) decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Natwarlal Amratlal Shah vs. Director, Employees State Insurance Scheme reported in 2001 (2) GLH 513.
Page 12 of 20C/SCA/11717/2014 JUDGMENT 11.1 Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that the point for consideration before this Court is, as to whether the concerned workmen were entitled to the benefits flowing from Clause:20 of the settlement, as claimed by them, and as accepted by the Tribunal.
11.2 The Corporation and the Workers' Union had entered into a settlement. Clause:20 of the said settlement is relevant, which is referred in the impugned award. It provides that, the case of a daily wager shall be considered for being taken on the regular time scale, after completion of 180 days as a daily wager, keeping in view the availability of confirmed vacant posts of the respective cadre. There is further stipulation that, the said consideration would be on the basis of the inter-se seniority of such daily wagers. Thus there are three fold stipulations under the said policy. The respondent workman claimed benefit under the said settlement.
11.3 The respondent workman asserted that, on completion of 180 days as a daily wager, he ought to have been granted time scale. This assertion is accepted by the Tribunal as it is. The final award is based on the finding recorded by the Tribunal, which is based on the misreading of the relevant clause of the settlement. The Tribunal has considered, as if there was only one stipulation in the said settlement, that as and when the concerned workman completes 180 days as a daily wager, he is entitled to claim the regular time scale. The Tribunal has recorded that, on completion of 180 days, counting from his initial date of engagement as a daily wager, he is entitled to get the said benefit. This finding of the Page 13 of 20 C/SCA/11717/2014 JUDGMENT Tribunal is based on misreading of Clause:20 of the settlement, since, out of the three stipulations as noted above, it considered only one stipulation. Thus, two of the total three stipulations are not taken into consideration by the Tribunal, leading to perversity and illegality. For this reason, the impugned awards need to be interfered with.
12.1 So far the argument of Mr.Vasavda, learned advocate for the Union, to the effect that, there is only one stipulation that the concerned workman has to complete 180 days employment as a daily wager, to be entitled to get the benefit of time scale, pursuant to Clause-20 of the settlement, is concerned, the same needs to be rejected, on the plain reading of the said Clause-20 of the settlement, which makes it clear that there is not one stipulation, but there are three stipulations, as recorded above, which need to be satisfied. Therefore this contention, that there is only one stipulation and not three, is rejected. It is recorded that, the Tribunal has proceeded on this footing only, but that is the perverse reading of Clause-20 of the settlement and thus, the argument of Mr.Vasavda and the line of reasoning taken by the Tribunal, both need to be rejected.
12.2 Learned advocates for the Union (other than Mr.Vasavda), have accepted the position that it is true that, there are three stipulations in clause-20 of the settlement in question, but according to them, all the three stipulations are satisfied. To show that all the three conditions are satisfied, the further dissection made by them is that, completion of 180 days is not in dispute, and so far remaining two conditions are concerned, the same were required to be disproved by the Page 14 of 20 C/SCA/11717/2014 JUDGMENT Corporation and having failed to do so, adverse inference ought to have been drawn, which is rightly drawn by the Tribunal. This argument needs to be rejected because if the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal is seen, it does not proceed on the footing that all the three conditions are satisfied, but it proceeds on the footing that, reading of Clause-20 is that, only one condition is required to be satisfied. Thus, the reading of Clause-20 of the settlement, by learned advocates that all the three conditions are required to be fulfilled is right, but the Tribunal has not granted relief considering that these three conditions are satisfied. Thus, the line of argument taken by learned advocates before this Court is inconsistent with the reasons recorded by the Tribunal, and also with the line of argument the workmen had taken before the Tribunal. The workmen cannot be permitted to create different cases before different forums.
13. So far the argument of learned advocates for the Union about the discriminatory stand adopted by the Corporation in different cases is concerned, learned advocates are right to the extent that, the workmen will have heart burning. It may, in some cases be even based on, if not extraneous, at least irrelevant consideration. Though such decisions need to be condemned in strongest words, while deciding the legality of the award under challenge, this Court should not be guided by the arbitrariness of the employer. The decision of the Corporation, in a particular case, not to challenge the award, in one's perception may be irrational, but solely on that ground, this Court can not uphold the award of the Tribunal which otherwise is found to be illegal and unsustainable. In this regard, reference may be made to the decisions of Honourable Page 15 of 20 C/SCA/11717/2014 JUDGMENT the Supreme Court of India in the case of (i) Chandigarh Administration vs. Jagjit Singh reported in (1995) 1 SCC 745, and (ii) State of Bihar vs. Upendra Narayan Singh reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65. Keeping above principle in view, this Court finds that the decision of the Corporation not to challenge the similar award passed in favour of few workmen would not be the relevant consideration while examining the legality and sustainability of the impugned awards of the Tribunal.
14. So far the argument of learned advocates for the Union that atleast notional benefit be given to the workmen is concerned, firstly it has to be decided as to whether the workman is entitled to the said benefit at all, and if yes, the question may crop up as to whether he should be given the said benefit with arrears or notionally. Since this Court has, on merits, found that the concerned workman was not entitled to the benefit claimed by him, the question of treating the said benefit notional or actual, would not arise at all. This alternative argument, therefore is rejected. Since, in some cases, the Corporation has given such benefit notionally, it would definitely create heart burning to the workmen, however keeping in view the above referred principle laid down by Honourable the Supreme Court of India in the decisions in the case of (i) Chandigarh Administration vs. Jagjit Singh reported in (1995) 1 SCC 745, and (ii) State of Bihar vs. Upendra Narayan Singh reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65, this argument will not take the case of the Union / workmen any further. [ It is recorded that, by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, which is the subject matter of Special Civil Application No.2262 of 2013, only notional benefit is granted.] Page 16 of 20 C/SCA/11717/2014 JUDGMENT 15.1 Both the sides have relied on number of precedents of this Court, referred above. If all those orders are taken into consideration, the picture which has emerged is that, all those orders can be classified in two different lines. One is the order of this Court (Coram: Honourable Mr.Justice Y.B.Bhatt, as His Lordship then was) recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 dated 27.01.2000 in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Bharatkumar Jashwantlal Rao. The second is the judgment of this Court (Coram: Honourable Ms.Justice R.M.Doshit, as Her Lordship then was) recorded on Special Civil Application No.10974 to 10976 of 1993 dated 20.09.2004 in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. S.T. Workers' Union. Both the above, i.e. the order and the judgment respectively, are confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. Reference can be made to (i) the order of the Division Bench dated 12.03.2001 recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.905 of 2000 in Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000, and (ii) the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.12.2005 recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.1544 of 2005 in Special Civil Application No.10976 of 1993. Both the appeals were dismissed, thus both the orders of learned Single Judges stood confirmed. In all other subsequent orders, either of the above is followed. Thus, now it is to be seen as to, of these two, which order or judgment should be followed in this group of petitions. Having minutely gone through both the orders i.e. of Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993, this Court finds that, it is the judgment in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993 which lays down the law and not the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000. Further, the order of the Division Bench of this Page 17 of 20 C/SCA/11717/2014 JUDGMENT Court, dismissing the appeal (Letters Patent Appeal No.905 of 2000) against the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000 also makes it clear that, while deciding Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000, this Court had not laid down any law and the decision was rendered considering the facts of that case. The Division Bench had, while dismissing the said appeal, observed thus.
"... Considering the fact that similar benefit has already been given by the S.T. Corporation to 32 other employees, we do not find any substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and we fully agree with the reasoning given by the learned single Judge as well as the Industrial Tribunal...."
15.2 It is the settled position of law that, a decision is an authority, for which it is decided, and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. Keeping this principle in view, and having read both the decisions of learned Single Judges, as well as both the orders of the Division Bench dismissing the appeals against those orders, this Court finds that, it is the judgment in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993 which lays down the law, and not the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000. While holding so, this Court is conscious of the fact that, the clause number has changed in the cases on hand, but the plain reading of clause-20 of the settlement which is on record, makes it clear that the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993 would apply with full force as the law holding the field.
15.3 Further, the said judgment of this Court in Special Civil Page 18 of 20 C/SCA/11717/2014 JUDGMENT Application No.10974 of 1993 is followed as a precedent by this Court in more than one decisions. Reference can be made to one such decision i.e. the judgment of this Court recorded on Special Civil Application No.11711 of 2002 dated 11.01.2011. Keeping all these aspects in view, this Court arrives at the conclusion that, it is the judgment in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993 which should be followed while deciding this group of petitions, and not the order recorded on Special Civil Application No.393 of 2000.
16. Over and above, the above referred decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.10974 of 1993, on the plain reading of clause-20 of the settlement in question, independently also, this Court had recorded a judgment on Special Civil Application No.10908 of 2014 dated 20.08.2014. The said decision will also apply with full force in this group of petitions.
17. Since the impugned award of the Tribunal is found to be illegal and unsustainable on merits, the question of delay in approaching the Tribunal by the workmen may not have much relevance in the facts of these cases, however it needs to be observed that, if the concerned workmen were right in their assertion that on completion of 180 days service, counting from their initial date of engagement as a daily wager/ Badli worker, they ought to have been granted time scale, then there was inordinate and unexplained delay on their part in approaching the Tribunal. The situation in which the concerned workmen moved the Tribunal was such, where the concerned workmen can be said to have bound themselves by the doctrine of acceptance sub silentio, or that, at least the dispute Page 19 of 20 C/SCA/11717/2014 JUDGMENT raised was for a stale claim. A question may also crop up, as to whether, under those circumstances, the same could be even termed to be an industrial dispute. Reference in this regard can be made to the decisions of Honourable the Supreme Court of India in the cases of (i) Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank vs. Neelam reported in (2005) 5 SCC 91, more particularly para:18 thereof, and (ii) Chief Engineer Ranjit Sagar Dam vs. Sham Lal reported in (2006) 9 SCC 124, more particularly paras:9 and 10 thereof. This aspect should not have been overlooked by the Tribunal. On this additional ground of delay as well, the concerned workmen had dis- entitled themselves from getting any relief, at least arrears, unless specific reasons to do the contrary are recorded by the Tribunal, which it has not. [It is recorded that, by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, which is the subject matter of Special Civil Application No.2262 of 2013, only notional benefit is granted.]
18. Considering the totality, this Court finds that, the impugned awards passed by the Tribunal are illegal and unsustainable in law and the same need to be quashed and set aside.
19. For the reasons recorded above, these three petitions are allowed. The impugned awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the details of which are recorded in paras: 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 above are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in each petition, with no order as to costs.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) Amit/8-68-110/1 Page 20 of 20