Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Surendranagar District Panchayat vs Chikabhai Rupabhai on 23 February, 2018

Author: K.M.Thaker

Bench: K.M.Thaker

         C/SCA/20621/2015                                       JUDGMENT




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20621 of 2015


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to             Yes
      see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                          No

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the         No
      judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of law         No
      as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
      order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                  SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT
                               Versus
                         CHIKABHAI RUPABHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N)(11) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
MR NILESH M SHAH(780) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
RULE NOT RECD BACK(63) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED(64) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
==========================================================

    CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER

                               Date : 23/02/2018
                               ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard  Mr.  Munshaw,   learned   advocate  for  the  petitioner and Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the  Page 1 of 26 C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT respondent.

2. In  this  petition  the  petitioner  has  prayed,  inter alia, that:­ "8 (B) Be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application   by way of issuing appropriate writ, writ of mandamus or  writ   of   certiorari   or   order   or   directions   quashing   and   setting   aside   the   order   dated   10.10.2014   passed   by   the   Hon'ble   Labour   Court   at   Surendranagar   in   Recovery   Application­33­TC[2] No. 98/11 directing the petitioners   to pay an amount  of Rs.2,82,539/­  to the respt.  no.  1,  annexed as Annexure­C in the interest of justice."

3. The   petitioner   is   aggrieved   by   order   dated  10.10.2014   passed   by   learned   Labour   Court   in  Reference   Application   No.   98   of   2011   whereby  learned   Labour   Court   directed   the   petitioner   to  pay Rs.2,82,539/­ to the claimant. 

4. So   far   as   relevant   factual   backdrop   is  concerned,   it   has   emerged   from   the   record   that  the respondent herein was terminated from service  by   present   petitioner   in   April   1989.   Feeling  aggrieved   by   said   action   of   the   petitioner   the  respondent   raised   industrial   dispute.   The   said  dispute   was   referred   for   adjudication.   Learned  Labour   Court   registered   reference   as   Reference  (LCS) No. 302 of 1992. 

Page 2 of 26 

         C/SCA/20621/2015                          JUDGMENT



4.1       After   hearing   the   parties   and   after 

considering   evidence   on   record   learned   Labour  Court   allowed   the   reference   and   directed   the  petitioner   to   reinstate   the   claimant   without  backwages.

4.2 The   petitioner   felt   aggrieved   by   award  passed by learned Labour Court and therefore the  petitioner   filed   Special   Civil   Application   No.  9706 of 1999. 

4.3 This   Court   rejected   said   petition   vide  order dated 28.10.2004.

4.4   The   concerned   claimant   had   also   filed  petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 5390  of 2001 against same award to claim backwages and  other benefits. 

4.5 So far as petition filed by the petitioner  panchayat   is   concerned,   the   same   came   to   be  rejected.   Whereas   in   the   petition   filed   by   the  claimant the Court partly modified the award and  clarified that the claimant shall be entitled to  continuity of service.


4.6       The   orders   passed   by   this   Court   in   above 

                             Page 3 of 26
         C/SCA/20621/2015                       JUDGMENT

mentioned two petitions have been carefully taken  into   account   by   the   learned   Labour   Court   in  impugned   award,   which   is   evident   from   the  discussion   in   paragraph   Nos.   17   to   20   of   the  impugned award.

4.7 The   petitioner   carried   the   decision   of  learned Single Judge before Hon'ble Apex Court by  way   of   SLP   No.   2564   of   2004   wherein   the  petitioner challenged orders passed by High Court  in Special Civil Application No. 5390 of 2001 and  Special   Civil   Application   No.   9706   of   1999.  Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed SLP No. 2564 of 2004  and   confirmed   the   decision   by   High   Court   in  Special Civil Application No. 5390 of 2001 (i.e.  the petition filed by the claimant). 4.8   After Hon'ble Apex Court passed order in  SLP   No.   2564/2004   the   panchayat   reinstated   the  claimant vide order dated 16.10.2008. 4.9   After   the   respondent   claimant   was  reinstated in October, 2008, the petitioner felt  Page 4 of 26 C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT aggrieved   by   the   amount   of   salary   and   other  benefits which were being paid to him. Therefore,  the   claimant   filed   recovery   application  No.98/2011.

4.10   The learned Labour Court adjudicated the  said   recovery   application   No.98/2011   and   vide  order   dated   10.10.2014   partly   allowed   the  recovery application. 

5. In   this   background,   the   petitioner   has  challenged   the   order   passed   by   learned   Labour  Court.

6. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for petitioner  panchayat vehemently assailed the order passed by  learned Labour Court. He submitted that recovery  application   was   not   maintainable   and   should   not  have been entertained by the learned Labour Court  because the claim raised by the respondent herein  before   learned   Labour   Court   involved   such   issue  which   would   require   adjudication   and   the  Page 5 of 26 C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT application   could   not   have   been   entertained  without adjudication of rights of the contesting  parties. However, learned Labour Court failed to  appreciate  that  and decided  the issue  which  can  be adjudicated only in reference under Section 10  and   that   therefore   impugned   order   is  unsustainable   and   the   order   is   passed   in  irregular exercise of jurisdiction. According to  learned advocate for the petitioner, the award is  without jurisdiction. Mr. Munshaw also submitted  that the petitioner was reinstated in service in  October,   2008   and   that   therefore   the   claim   for  the   period   after   2008   could   not   have   been  considered by the learned Labour Court. According  to learned advocate for the petitioner panchayat  the learned Labour Court has also committed error  in accepting the computation of amount allegedly  due to the workman. Any other contention is not  raised.

7. Per   contra,   Mr.   Shah   learned   advocate   for  respondent   workman   referred   to   the   affidavit  Page 6 of 26 C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT filed  by the  workman.  He  reiterated  the details  mentioned in the reply affidavit and he submitted  that   learned   Labour   Court   has   carefully  considered   relevant   facts   and   earlier   orders  passed by the court. He submitted that by virtue  of   award   passed   by   learned   Labour   Court   and  modified in favour of the workman by High Court,  the petitioner panchayat was under obligation to  consider   the   workman's   service   continuous   from  the date of his original appointment and to grant  all   benefits   to   the   workman   as   if   he   was  continuously in service however the panchayat did  not grant all benefits even after the workman was  reinstated   and   therefore   the   workman   was  compelled   to   file   recovery   application   for  difference of the salary and other benefits which  were short paid to the workman. He submitted that  the order passed by the learned Labour Court is  based   purely   and   only   on   the   direction   by   the  Court   in   the   judgment   in   SCA   No.   9706/1999   and  SCA No.5390/2001  and  that therefore  there  is  no  error or infirmity in the order passed by learned  Page 7 of 26 C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT Labour Court and the petition, therefore, should  be rejected.

8. I   have   considered   rival   submission   and  material available on record as well as impugned  order.

9. At   the   outset,   it   is   relevant   to   take   into  account the order passed by this Court in present  petition. On 17.12.2015 "1. Challenge in this petition is made by the employer to  the   order   passed   by   the   Labour   Court,   Surendranagar   in   Recovery   Application   No.   97   of   2011   dated   10.10.2014,   directing the petitioner authorities to make payment of   Rs. 1,75,263/­ to the workman.

2. It is noted that on earlier occasion the workman was   illegally   terminated   which   was   set   aside   by   the   Labour   Court   and   the   workman   was   reinstated   in   service   only   after   she   was   dragged   right   up   to   Hon'ble   the   Supreme   Court   of   India.   In   the   present   case,   prima   facie,   the   reasons  recorded   by  the   Labour   Court   does   not  call   for   any interference. With a view to see that the legitimate   dues   of   the   workman   are   not   further   derailed,   it   is   deemed proper to first direct the petitioner authorities   to  deposit   the  amount  with   the   Registry  of   this  Court.   Before the returnable date, the amount as directed by the   Labour   Court   shall   be   deposited   by   the   petitioner   with   the Registry of this Court. Dealing with the said amount/   disbursement thereof may be considered thereafter.

3.   Issue   Notice   to   the   respondents   returnable   on   05.01.2016. Over and above normal mode of service, direct   service is permitted. It would be open to the petitioners   to serve the respondents by Registered Post." Page 8 of 26

C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT 9.1   Mr.   Munshaw,   learned   advocate   for   the  petitioner submitted and clarified that after the  order   dated   17.12.2015   the   panchayat   has  deposited the amount. 

9.2 It is also relevant to take into account the  order   dated   16.11.2016   whereby   this   Court  admitted   the   petition.   The   said   order   dated  16.11.2016 reads thus:

"1. Rule.
2.   Having   considered   the   rival   contentions   for   interim   relief, it cannot be disputed that the applicability of   Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the respondents   workmen was never made a subject matter of adjudication   in the Labour Court in substantial proceedings but such   issue   was   raised   only   in   the   proceeding   under   Section   33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act ( for short 'the   I.D.Act') for recovery.
3. The Labour Court prima facie appears to have ignored   the legal proposition that provisions of Section 33(C)(2)   of  the   I.D  Act   are  circumscribed   only   to  ascertain   the   amounts to which the workmen may be entitled but when it   comes   to   adjudication   of   the   the   very   entitlement,   no   jurisdiction can be exercised under Section 33(C) (2) of   the I.D Act. In the instant case, it appears that before   applying Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, various   factual aspects in the nature of criterion laid down in   Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 are required to be   ascertained   and   adjudicated   upon.   Without   such   adjudication   the   order   has   been   passed   under   Section   33(C)(2) of the I.D. Act and therefore being vulnerable,   it is required to be stayed. Accordingly, the award dated   10.10.2014 in Recovery Applications Nos. 97 of 2011 and   98 of 2011 passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar is   stayed. It is however clarified that it will be open for   the   workmen   to   make   representation   to   the   petitioner   panchayat   with   regard   to   their   entitlement   of   the   benefits   of   the   Government   Resolution  dated   17.10.1988.   In the event such representation is made, the petitioner   panchayat will decide the same in accordance with law.
Page 9 of 26
C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT
4.   The   amount   already   deposited   by   the   petitioner   panchayat   before   this   Court   shall   be   deposited   in   the   Fixed Deposit Scheme of a nationalized bank initially for   a period of 5 years which shall be renewed thereafter for   a   further   period   of   3   years   until   disposal   of   this   petition. Let the interest accumulate on that amount".

9.3 From   above   mentioned   facts   it   has   emerged  that   the   service   of   the   claimant   i.e.   the  original   applicant   before   learned   Labour   Court  and present respondent, came to be terminated in  April, 1989. 

9.4 The said termination of present respondent's  service resulted into reference proceedings i.e.  reference no.302/1992. The said reference came to  be decided by learned Labour Court in favour of  the   workman.   The   learned   Labour   Court   partly  allowed   the   reference   with   direction   to   the  panchayat   to   reinstate   the   claimant   without  backwages. 

9.5 Feeling   aggrieved   by   the   said   award,   the  panchayat filed SCA No. 9706/1999. 9.6  The workman also felt aggrieved by the award  because   the   learned   Labour   Court   did   not   grant  benefit   of   backwages   and   continuity   of   service  and therefore the workman filed SCA No.5390/2001. Page 10 of 26 

         C/SCA/20621/2015                         JUDGMENT



9.7           This   Court   rejected   the   petition   filed 

by the Panchayat whereas in the petition filed by  the   workman   this   Court   granted   benefit   of  continuity   of   service   with   direction   that   the  service   of   the   claimant   should   be   considered  continuous. 

9.8   The SLP filed by the Panchayat against the  order passed by this Court in above mentioned two  petitions, came to be disposed of by the Hon'ble  Supreme   Court   with   confirmation   of   the   order  passed  by this  Court  in workman's  petition  i.e.  SCA No. 5390 of 2001 and rejection of panchayat's  objection against the order in the petition filed  by the panchayat i.e. SCA No.9706/1999. 9.9   After   the   disposal   of   SLP   by   Hon'ble  Apex Court, the Panchayat reinstated the workman  in October, 1988. 

10. In   this   backdrop,   the   workman   claimed   that  the panchayat  should   have paid  full  salary  with  all   benefits   however   the   panchayat   paid   less  Page 11 of 26 C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT salary   and   did   not   pay   various   benefits   even  after reinstatement. With these allegations, the  claimant filed recovery application no.98/2011. 10.1  From   the   order­decision   passed   by   the  learned   Labour   Court   in   the   said   recovery  application which is impugned in present petition  it   comes   out   that   the   learned   Tribunal   has  purely,   singularly   and   only   relied   on   the  specific   direction   passed   by   this   Court   while  deciding and disposing SCA No. 9706/1999 and SCA  No.5390/2001   filed   by   the   panchayat   and   the  workman   respectively   against   the   award   in  reference no.302 of 1992. 

10.2  In   Para­17   of   the   impugned   order   the  learned Labour Court has taken into account below  quoted   observation   by   this   Court   in   above  mentioned two petitions:

"3.In   present   case,   I   find   that   the   employer   had   not  produced   any   material   before   the   Labour   Court   ot   establish that the workman had abandoned the service. In   that view of the matter, the finding of the Labour Court   that   the   services   of   the   workman   were   terminated   on   1.4.89   cannot   be   interfered   with   in   exercise   of   powers   Page 12 of 26 C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT under   Article   227   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   The   Labour Court found tht the termination was in violation   of the provisions of Section 25­G and H of the Industrial   Disputes Act. These findings are not seriously in dispute   and the action of the Labour Court, therefore, in setting   aside   the   termination   of   the   workman   was   perfectly   justified.   Having   found   that   the   workman   was   illegally   terminated   from   service,   Labour   Court   would   have   been   justified  withholding  the  backwages   for   the   intervening   period,   in   the   facts   of   the   present   case,   since   the   workman   himself   had   delayed   raising   of   reference   for   nearly   three   years   after   his   termination.   However,   the   action   of   the   Labour   Court   in   denying   the   workman   the   benefits of continuity in service cannot be countenanced.   The workman would be entitled to continuity in service.   Learned advocate appearing for the workman Ms. D.T.Shah   has  stated   and  conceded   that   since   the  workman   had  not   actually worked in service in the year 1988, the workman   would   not   be   entitled   to   nor   will   the   workman   claim   regularisation   pursuant   to   the   Government   resolution   dated 17.10.88 on the basis of notional continuation.
4. In   the   result,   the   award   of   the   Labour   Court   is   modified to the extent that the workman would be entitled   to   receive   continuity   of   service   without   backwages.   Accordingly, Special Civil Application No.9706 of 1999 is   rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.   Special Civil Application No. 5390 of 2001 is allowed in   part   as   aforesaid.   Rule   is   made   absolute   to   the   above   extent with no order as to costs."

11. It   appears   from   the   said   direction   by   this  Court,  that  this  Court  while  disposing   the said  petitions,   clarified   that   the   workman   shall   be  entitled   for   continuity   of   service   without  backwages. 

11.1 In   view   of   the   said   direction,   it   was  obvious   and   clear   for   the   learned   Labour   Court  that  the workman's  service   was to be  considered  Page 13 of 26 C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT continuous   from   the   date   of   joining   until   he  actually came to be reinstated in October, 1988. 11.2   It   appears   that   after   the   claimant   was  reinstated   in   2008,   the   panchayat   did   not   pay  wages   to   the   claimant   from   the   date   of   award  until actual date of reinstatement.  11.3 Therefore,   along   with   other   workman,  present   respondent   filed   recovery   application  no.38/2009 and claimed wages for the period from  the date  of award  in  Reference   No.302/1992  till  the date of actual reinstatement. 

11.4 The order passed by learned Labour Court in  the   said   recovery   application   no.38/2009   was  brought   before   this   Court   in   SCA   No.   6983/2010  because   the   learned   Labour   Court   only   partly  allowed   the   recovery   application   no.38/2009   by  awarding backwages from the date when the Supreme  Court   disposed   of   the   SLP   No.2564/2004   and   not  from  the date  of award  in reference  no.302/1992  (i.e.   not   from   25.2.1994).   While   disposing   the  said SCA No.6983/2010, this Court observed, inter  alia, that: 

Page 14 of 26

C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT "5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of   the respective parties at length. From the facts narrated   hereinabove, it is not in dispute that the judgment and   award   passed   by   the   Labour   Court   dated   25/02/1999   in   Reference   (L.C.S)   No.302/1992   granting   reinstatement   to   the   petitioners   came   to   be   confirmed   upto   the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court.   It   is   also   not   in   dispute   that   the   judgement   and   award   passed   by   the   Labour   Court,   Surendranagar   in   the   aforesaid   Reference   denying   continuity of service came to be set aside by the learned   Single   Judge   and   the   learned   Single   Judge   directed   to   grant   continuity   in   service   from   the   date   of   initial   appointment. The said order pased by the learned Single   Judge came to be confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.   Under   the   circumstances,   when   the   judgment   and   award   passed by the Labour Court came to be confirmed up to the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court,   the   petitioners   are   entitled   to   all   the   benefits,   inclusive   of   wages   flowing   from   the   aforesaid judgment and award as well as the order passed   by the learned Single Judge dated 28/10/2004 in Special   Civil   Application   No.   5390/2001   inclusive   of   wages   and   other   benefits   subject   to   deducting   whatever   amount   is   paid   under   Section   17B   of   the   Industrial   Disputes   Act.   The contention on behalf of the respondents that during   pendencyo f the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court   the   petitioners   did   not   submit   any   application   under   Section   17B   of   the   Industrial   Disputes   Act   and,   therefore,   they   are   not   entitled   to   any   wages   for   the   aforesaid   period   cannot   be   accepted.   If   the   aforesaid   contention   is   accepted   then   the   order   passed   by   the   Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing the SLP and confirming   the order passed by the learned Single Judge confirmed by   the   LPA   Bench   would   become   nugatory.   Under   the  circumstances,   when   the   judgment   and   award   passed   by   Labour Court as well as the judgement and award passed by   the   learned   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   the   petitioners   are   entitled   to   all   the   benefits   flowing   from   the   date   of   said   judgement   and   award   inclusive   of   wages   and   other   benefits   from   the   date   of   the   award   till   reinstatement   subject   to   deducting   whatever   is   paid   to   them   under   Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

6. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   hereinabove, the present petition succeeds. The impugned   judgement   and   award   dated   31/03/2010   passed   by   the   learned   Labour   Court,   Surendranagar   in   Recovery   Application No.38/2009 in so far as denying the backwages   and   other   benefits   from   the   date   of   the   award   till   reinstatement   is   hereby   quashed   and   set   aside   an   the   respondent   is   directed   to   pay   the   wages   and   other   benefits to the petitioners from the date of award i.e.   25/02/1994 till they are reinstated i.e. 16/10/2008 after   deducting whatever amount is paid to them under Section   17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Necessary calculation   shall be made by the respondents within a period of eight   Page 15 of 26 C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT weeks from today and actual payment shall be made within   a period of four weeks thereafter. Rule is made absolute   to the aforesaid extent."

 

12. On plain reading of impugned order it becomes  clear   that   in   Para­18   of   the   said   order,   the  learned Labour Court has also taken into account  the   observation   by   this   Court   in   SCA   No.  6983/2010. 

12.1 The   Court  clarified   that   panchayat   will  be   entitled   to   adjust   the   amount   paid   towards  last drawn wages under Section 17(B).  12.2 Thus, it was clear before learned Labour  Court   that   the   claimant   was   considered   eligible  for continuity of service and wages from the date  of award i.e. 25.2.1994. 

13. In   this   background   and   after   taking   into  account above mentioned decision and observation  by   this   Court,   the   learned   Labour   Court   passed  impugned award. 

Page 16 of 26

C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT

14. The issue which, therefore, arise is whether  there   is   any   error   in   impugned   order   passed   by  the learned Labour Court.

15. In this context, it is relevant to note that  the claimant approached learned Labour Court with  the   contention   that   after   he   came   to   be  reinstated   in   October,   2008,   the   Panchayat   did  not pay several benefits to which he was eligible  in accordance with applicable Rules and Policy.  15.1   The   claimant,   along   with   his   application  also   placed   on   record   the   statement   reflecting  the amounts which he was entitled for. (For e.g.  the   rate   of   basic   salary,   rate   of   Dearness  Allowance,   Medical   Allowance,   HRA).   For   entire  period, the claimant demanded Rs.2,82,539/­. The  claimant demanded the said amount for the period  from 16.10.2008 to 31.11.2011. 

16.   At  this  stage   it is  relevant  to  note  that  the panchayat asserted before the learned Labour  Court that the claimant had actually retired from  Page 17 of 26 C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT service   on   superannuation   in   October,   2010   and  that   therefore,   his   claim   for   the   amount   till  31.11.2011 is unjustified.

17. It is also relevant to note that there is no  material   on   record   to   demonstrate   that   in   this  particular   case   the   panchayat   was   successful   to  establish  before    the learned  Labour  Court  that  the claimant was not entitled for the amount or  benefits   which   he   demanded   in   recovery  application. 

17.1 The   panchayat   failed   to   establish   its  case/ defence. 

17.2  Actually, the Panchayat did not even appear  to   have   pleaded,   much   less   proved,   before   the  learned   Labour   Court   that   the   claimant   was   not  entitled for grade pay and/ or Dearness Allowance  and/ or Medical Allowance and/ or HRA.  17.3 Any issue with regard to availability /  non­entitlement of said benefits to the claimant,  was not raised before the learned Labour Court.  Page 18 of 26

C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT 17.4   The   panchayat   failed   to   prove   that   during  his tenure the claimant was not entitled for the  said benefits.

18. Despite   the   fact   that   the   claimant  specifically mentioned the basic salary which he  would be entitled for the period from 16.10.2010  to   31.3.2009   and   1.4.2009   (i.e.   Rs.3200/­   and  Rs.7140   respectively),   the   panchayat   failed   to  place any material on record to demonstrate that  the   claimant   would   be   entitled   to   some   other  amount   towards   basic   salary   and   he   will   not   be  entitled for basic salary at the rate of R.3200  and Rs.7140 (as claimed in the application). 18.1  Likewise,   the   claimant   specifically  mentioned   in   the   recovery   application   that   he  would   be   entitled   to   grade   pay   at   the   rate   of  R.1300/­ from 1.4.2009. 

18.2   The   panchayat   failed   to   prove   that   the  claimant would not be entitled to said grade pay  Page 19 of 26 C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT or that much he would be entitled for other/ less  grade pay. 

18.3  Similar is the case so far as the demand for  Dearness   Allowance   Medical   Allowance   and   HRA   is  concerned. 

18.4   In   his   recovery   application   the   claimant  specifically mentioned the amount which he would  be   eligible   for   and   he   also   asserted   that   the  panchayat did not pay the said benefits to him.  18.5  Despite   such   specific   claim   by   the  claimants,   the   panchayat   did   not   place   any  material on record to establish that the claimant  is not eligible for the said benefits and/ or the  amounts claimed by him. 

19. In   this   view   of   the   matter,   the   learned  Labour  Court  took  into  account  the  direction   by  this   Court   in   above   two   petitions   that   the  Page 20 of 26 C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT workman is entitled for continuity of service and  wages from the date of award. 

19.1  The learned Labour Court has taken the said  observation   as   basis   for   its   decision   and   the  Court   proceeded   on   said   premise   to   support   and  justify the decision.  

19.2   In   light   of   said   direction   the   learned  Labour   Court   found   that   the   claimant   would   be  eligible   and   entitled   for   the   benefits   namely  basic   salary,   Grade   pay,   Dearness   Allowance,  Medical   alliance   and   HRA   in   accordance   with  applicable Rules and Policy. 

20.  Since any material was not placed  on record  by the panchayat to establish that said benefits  are   not   available   to   the   claimant,   the   learned  Labour Court, in view of the applicable Rules and  Policy,  could  not  have  denied  the said  benefits  to the claimant.

Page 21 of 26

C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT

21. At this stage, it would not be out of place  to   mention   that   in   a   separate   proceedings   of  recovery   application   filed   by   another   workman  before   other   learned   Labour   Court   i.e.   by   Ms.  Pankhuben   Pujaben   who   filed   a   separate   recovery  application on strength of award dated 25.2.1994  in reference no.302/1999, the said other learned  Labour Court rejected the recovery application. 21.1   Against   the   said   order   in   recovery  application   the   said   employee   Pankhuben   Pujaben  filed SCA No. 1295/2016. 

21.2   This   Court   allowed   the   said   recovery  application vide order dated 16.11.2006 and held  that   the   claimant   would   be   entitled   for   the  benefits and the decision of learned Labour Court  of   not   allowing   recovery   application   was  unjustified.

22. In present case, the learned advocate for the  claimant   relied  on the  said decision  to support  Page 22 of 26 C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT his   submission   that   present   award   may   not   be  disturbed.

23. When   above   mentioned   aspect   are   taken   into  account and when it has clearly emerged that the  panchayat failed to establish before the learned  Labour  Court  that  the claimant  was  not entitled  for the said benefits (namely basic salary, Grade  pay,   Dearness   Allowance,   Medical   alliance   and  HRA) and when panchayat also failed to establish  that   though   the   claimant   may   be   considered  eligible   for   the   said   benefit,   he   would   be   not  eligible to claim the amount as calculated by him  and   the   amount   quantified   by   him   is   incorrect,  the   order   of   learned   Labour   Court   cannot   be  faulted. 

23.1   It   cannot   be   said   that   the   learned   Labour  Court   committed   any   error   in   allowing   the  recovery   application   and/   or   in   quantifying   the  amount.   From   above   mentioned   details   and   facts  involved in present case, it has emerged     that  Page 23 of 26 C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT in   recovery   application   no.98/2011   filed   by  present   claimant,   any   issue   which   would   require  adjudication   to   any   extent   was   neither   involved  nor raised by panchayat. The learned Labour Court  merely read, construed and correctly applied the  decision   and   directions   by   this   Court   and   Apex  Court   in   above   mentioned   petitions   and   the  learned  Labour   Court  did not  adjudicate  any lis  or did not create any new right.

23.2   The claim raised by present respondent was  purely based on award by the learned Labour court  in reference no.302/1992 and the orders passed by  this Court in SCA No.9706/99 and SCA No.5390/2001  which were filed by the Panchayat and the workman  respectively   in   connection   with   the   award   dated  25.2.1994 in reference no.302/1992.  23.3   Therefore,   the   contention   by   Mr.   Munshaw,  learned   advocate   for   panchayat   that   the   learned  Labour Court entertained the recovery application  which   involved   issue   which   would   require  adjudication,   is   not   sustainable   and   cannot   be  accepted.   Actually   panchayat   never   raised   such  Page 24 of 26 C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT contention/ any contention to such effect before  learned Labour Court. In this view of the matter,  the said contention is rejected. 

24.  Further, in view of the fact that panchayat  failed to place any material on record before the  learned Labour Court either to dispute claimant's  entitlement   for   above   mentioned   benefits   or   to  dispute the calculation of amount demanded by the  claimant,  any fault  cannot   be found  against  the  learned   Labour   Court's   decision   in   calculating  the   workman's   entitlement   for   the   unpaid   amount  towards said benefits namely basic salary, Grade  pay, Dearness Allowance, Medical alliance and HRA  in accordance with applicable Rules and Policy.

25. It is pertinent to note that even on record  of this petition, any material is not placed by  the panchayat which would satisfy this Court that  the   claimant   is   not   entitled   for   said   benefits  namely   basic   salary,   Grade   pay,   Dearness  Page 25 of 26 C/SCA/20621/2015 JUDGMENT Allowance,  Medical   alliance  and  HRA and/  or the  rate at which the said benefits are prayed for.

26. Under the circumstances, the petition fails.  Learned advocate for the petitioner panchayat has  failed to establish that the order passed by the  learned   Labour   court   suffers   from   any   error   or  infirmity.   The   petitioner   has   also   failed   to  establish   that   the   order   suffers   from   error   of  jurisdication   or   that   the   learned   Labour   Court  has   exercised   jurisdiction   irregularly.  Consequently,   the   petition   deserves   to   be  rejected and is accordingly rejected. 

(K.M.THAKER, J.)  saj Page 26 of 26