Surendranagar District Panchayat vs Parvatiben Khimajibhai on 23 February, 2018

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Surendranagar District Panchayat vs Parvatiben Khimajibhai on 23 February, 2018

Bench: K.M.Thaker

         C/SCA/20468/2015                                       JUDGMENT




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20468 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
                       PARVATIBEN KHIMAJIBHAI
==========================================================
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
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
RULE NOT RECD BACK(63) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED(64) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

    CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER

                               Date : 23/02/2018
                               ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the Page 1 of 27 C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT petitioner and Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the 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. 97/11 directing the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.1,75,263/ 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. 97 of 2011 whereby learned Labour Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,75,263/ 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 Page 2 of 27 C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT (LCS) No. 302 of 1992.

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. The petitioner felt aggrieved by award passed by learned Labour Court and therefore the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 9706 of 1999. This Court rejected said petition vide order dated 28.10.2004.

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

4.3 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. The orders passed by Page 3 of 27 C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT the High Court in above 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.

4.4 The petitioner carried the decision of learned Single Judge before Hon'ble Apex Court by filing 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 the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 5390 of 2001 (i.e. the petition filed by the claimant). 4.5 After Hon'ble Apex Court passed order in SLP No. 2566/2006 the panchayat reinstated the claimant vide order dated 16.10.2008. 4.6 According to the petitioner panchayat, subsequently the claimant attained age of Page 4 of 27 C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT superannuation and the claimant came to be retired from service on superannuation with effect from 31.10.2010.

4.7 After the respondent claimant was reinstated in October, 2008, the petitioner felt aggrieved by the amount of salary and other benefits which were being paid to her. Therefore, the claimant filed recovery application No.97/2011.

4.8 The learned Labour Court adjudicated the said recovery application No.97/2011 and vide order dated 10.10.2014 partly allowed the recovery application. The learned Labour Court accepted the submission of the Panchayat that the claimant workman had attained age of superannuation in October, 2010 and that he stood retired from service in October, 2010. Therefore, learned Labour Court restricted the relief till the date of retirement.

Page 5 of 27

C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT

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 application could not have been entertained without adjudication of the 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 Page 6 of 27 C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT 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 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 Page 7 of 27 C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT 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 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 Page 8 of 27 C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT 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." 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.

Page 9 of 27

C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT

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.

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. 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 Page 10 of 27 C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT Labour Court partly allowed the reference with direction to the panchayat to reinstate the claimant without backwages.

9.4 Feeling aggrieved by the said award, the panchayat filed SCA No. 9706/1999. 9.5 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. 9.6 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. 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 Page 11 of 27 C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT of panchayat's objection against the order in the petition filed by the panchayat i.e. SCA No.9706/1999.

9.7 After the disposal of SLP by Hon'ble Apex Court, the Panchayat reinstated the workman in October, 1988. The workman, thereafter, retired in October, 2010.

10. In this backdrop, the workman claimed that the panchayat should have paid full salary with all benefits however the panchayat paid less salary and did not pay various benefits even after reinstatement. With these allegations, the claimant filed recovery application no.97/2011. 10.1 From the award 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 Page 12 of 27 C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT 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 It is pertinent that learned Tribunal has not adjudicated any lis and/ or has not created and has not bestowed any right or benefit for first time or beyond the award/s. The Tribunal has merely construed the award/s and derived substance flowing from the awards and examined whether said benefits have been paid or not and passed the order on basis of such finding. The Tribunal, thus, did not travel beyond the jurisdiction u/s 33C(2). This is evident from Para17 of the impugned order wherein the Court considered following observation by this Court in said 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 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 Page 13 of 27 C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT 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 continuous from the date of joining until she actually came to be reinstated in October, 1988. Page 14 of 27

C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT 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 Page 15 of 27 C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT said SCA No.6983/2010, this Court observed, inter alia, that:

"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 Page 16 of 27 C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT 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 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, more particularly the observation whereby this Court clarified that the workman is entitled for wages and other benefits from 25.2.1994 i.e. date of award in reference no.302/1992 till 16.10.2008 i.e. the date on which workman came to be actually reinstated. 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.

Page 17 of 27

C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT

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

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 she came to be reinstated in October, 2008, the Panchayat did not pay several benefits to which she was eligible in accordance with applicable Rules and Policy.

15.1 The claimant, along with her application also placed on record the statement reflecting the amounts which she was entitled for. (For e.g. the date of basic salary, date of Dearness Allowance, Medical Allowance, HRA). Page 18 of 27

C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT 15.2 The claimant demanded the said amount for the period from 16.10.2008 to 31.11.2011. 15.3 At this stage it is relevant to note that the panchayat asserted before the learned Labour Court that the claimant had actually retired from service on superannuation in October, 2010 and that therefore, her claim for the amount till 31.11.2011 is unjustified.

15.4 For the said period, the claimant demanded Rs.2,82,539/.

16. At this stage it is 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 she demanded in recovery application. The panchayat failed to establish its case/ defence. Actually, the Panchayat did not even appear to have pleaded, much less proved before the learned Labour Court Page 19 of 27 C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT that the claimant was not entitled for grade pay and/ or Dearness Allowance and/ or Medical Allowance and/ or HRA. Any issue with regard to availability / nonentitlement of said benefits to the claimant, was not raised before the learned Labour Court. The panchayat failed to prove that during her tenure the claimant was not entitled for the said benefits.

17. Despite the fact that the claimant specifically mentioned the basic salary which she 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 she will not be entitled for basic salary at the rate of R.3200 and Rs.7140.

18. Likewise, the claimant specifically mentioned in the recovery application that she would be Page 20 of 27 C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT entitled to grade pay at the rate of R.1300/ from 1.4.2009.

18.1 The panchayat failed to prove that the claimant would not be entitled to grade pay much less the grade of Rs.1300/.

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

18.3 In her recovery application the claimant specifically mentioned the amount which she would be eligible for and she also asserted that the panchayat did not pay the said benefits to her. 18.4 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. Page 21 of 27

C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT

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 workman is entitled for continuity of service and wages from the date of award.

19.1 The learned Labour Court made the said observation as basis for its decision on the premise that the claimant was directed to be reinstated in service with benefit of continuity of service.

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 in view of the Page 22 of 27 C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT applicable Rules and Policy, the learned Labour Court could not have denied the said benefits to the claimant.

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.

Page 23 of 27

C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT

22. In present case, the learned advocate for the claimant relied on the said decision to support 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, she would be not eligible to claim the amount as calculated by her and the amount quantified by her 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 Page 24 of 27 C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT recovery application and/ or in quantifying the amount. From the above mentioned details and facts involved in present case, it has emerged that in recovery application no.97/2011 filed by present claimant, any issue which would require adjudication to any extent was neither involved nor raised by panchayat.

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 contention/ any contention to such effect before Page 25 of 27 C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT 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 Allowance, Medical alliance and HRA and/ or the rate at which the said benefits are prayed for. Page 26 of 27

C/SCA/20468/2015 JUDGMENT

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 jurisdiction or that the learned Labour Court has exercised jurisdiction irregularly. Consequently, the petition fails and deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.

(K.M.THAKER, J) saj Page 27 of 27

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court