Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Construction Corp. Ltd vs Rohitkumar Arvindrao Biniwale on 15 July, 2016
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
C/SCA/4030/2008 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4030 of 2008
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4031 of 2008
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4032 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of NO
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of NO
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
GUJARAT STATE CONSTRUCTION CORP. LTD.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
ROHITKUMAR ARVINDRAO BINIWALE....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DG CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date : 15/07/2016
Page 1 of 4
HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Wed Jul 20 01:27:43 IST 2016
C/SCA/4030/2008 JUDGMENT
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner. Though served, no one is present for the respondent.
2. From the submissions of Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner and from the record and more particularly from the orders impugned in present petitions, it has emerged that the petitioner corporation had actually paid the amount of gratuity to the concerned employees at the relevant time, however, some dispute with regard to calculation had arisen between the corporation and the concerned workmen. Therefore, the workmen filed applications before the Controlling Authority who passed orders directing the corporation to pay the amount as claimed by the concerned workmen. The orders came to be confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The said orders are placed under challenge in this petition by the Board.
Page 2 of 4
HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Wed Jul 20 01:27:43 IST 2016
C/SCA/4030/2008 JUDGMENT
3. In this background, the petitioner has taken out present petitions on the ground that the authorities have passed the orders without considering the calculation and/or the explanation and reply of the corporation.
4. When in the light of the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner, the impugned orders are examined, it has emerged that the amount involved in these cases is meagre and petty amount inasmuch as by impugned orders, the corporation is directed to pay Rs.2,570/ to the respondent in Special Civil Application No.4030 of 2008 and by virtue of the order passed by the Controlling Authority, the corporation is directed to pay Rs.3,998/ to the respondent in Special Civil Application No.4031 of 2008 and by virtue of the order passed by the Controlling Authority, the corporation is directed to pay Rs.3,998/ to the respondent in Special Civil Application No.4032 of 2008. In view of the fact that such meagre and petty amount is involved, Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Wed Jul 20 01:27:43 IST 2016 C/SCA/4030/2008 JUDGMENT this Court is not inclined to exercise discretionary and prerogative writ jurisdiction and therefore, on that limited ground, the petitions are disposed of with the clarification that since the Controlling Authority has passed the said orders in light of the peculiar facts and material which might have been available with the authority at the relevant time, the said orders will not be considered as precedent for deciding any other matters and they shall be decided on their on merits in accordance with the law and on the basis of evidence which may be placed on record of such other cases.
With the aforesaid clarification and directions, the petitions are disposed of on aforesaid limited ground and without entering into the contentions raised in the petitions. Rule in all petitions is discharged.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) Bharat Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Wed Jul 20 01:27:43 IST 2016