Gujarat High Court
Green Channel Travel Services Pvt Ltd ... vs Cadill Pharmaceutical on 17 April, 2013
Author: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
Bench: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
GREEN CHANNEL TRAVEL SERVICES PVT LTD THRO ITS MANAGER....Applicant(s)V/SCADILL PHARMACEUTICAL WORKERS UNION C/MCA/708/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR RESTORATION) NO. 708 of 2013 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6820 of 2012 ================================================================ GREEN CHANNEL TRAVEL SERVICES PVT LTD THRO ITS MANAGER....Applicant(s) Versus CADILL PHARMACEUTICAL WORKERS UNION & 2....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR.KM PATEL, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR VARUN K.PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2 MR DS VASAVADA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent No. 1 MR PARITOSH CALLA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent No. 2 MR TR MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3.1 , 3.3 - 3.5 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 17/04/2013 ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) This is an application for review of our order dated December 19, 2012, by which we dismissed the application filed by the present petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated April 5, 2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Gujarat in Reference [IT] No.3 of 2008, partially allowing the application for interim relief filed by the Second Party, the Union and thereby directed the First Party, the Organization to pay to all the workmen/employees of the Organization ad hoc pay rise of Rs. 1500/- a month w.e.f. January 1, 2008. The Tribunal further ordered that the amount of difference in increase from January 1, 2008 till March 31, 2012 should be given in three equal monthly installments. It was further clarified by the order impugned before us that the amount of interim relief should be adjusted with the final award at the time of disposal of the Reference. The Tribunal further held that the decision with regard to pay rise for the period between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2007 would be taken up at the time of final disposal of the matter. The Tribunal, by the said order refused to consider the alleged settlement placed on record by the petitioner being Exh. 70 and 74/1 on the ground that the same was not a valid one in accordance with law.
At the time of hearing of the said application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Patel, the learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Vanun K Patel, learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner tried to justify the settlement and tried to impress upon us that the finding of the Tribunal was wrong. We turned down that contention of Mr. Patel and accepted the view taken by the Tribunal. As regards the question of actual amount of interim relief, we found that the Tribunal below took into consideration the fact that the amount of Rs. 2000/- a month was claimed as interim relief from January 1, 2006 and also took into consideration the accounts from the year 2006 to 2010 pertaining to the petitioner no.1. We further recorded that the Tribunal took note of the fact that even in the alleged settlement, the petitioner no.1 agreed to enhance the wages and thus, the economic condition of the Organization, as tried to be projected, was not believable. We also approved the finding of the Tribunal that the workers working in the similar organizations were getting more amount. We further recorded that the finding of the Tribunal, after taking into consideration the balance-sheet of the petitioners that both the petitioners were prima facie the employers was based on overall consideration of the materials on record.
In such circumstances, we were of the view that sitting in a jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, we should not interfere with the finding of fact based on the materials on record. We pointed out that even in a statutory appeal against an order of discretionary relief, the appellate court interferes only when the order impugned is clearly a wrong order and not because a different conclusion can be arrived at by the appellate authority on the basis of the selfsame materials.
By this application for review, Mr. Patel tried to argue the matter afresh on the question of quantum of interim relief.
In our opinion, within the limited scope of review and that too in connection with the finding of affirmation of order of the Tribunal below in exercise of power under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, we cannot rehear the matter on the question of interim relief like a regular First Appeal. It is needless to mention that the interim relief approved earlier by us will abide by the final decision and thus, there is no question of irreparable loss or injury to the petitioners as was pointed out by us while dismissing the application.
Mr. Patel lastly contended that the scope of Reference was not extended to all the employees, but only to a limited section of employees, i.e. drivers, conductors and cleaners. However, the award impugned has given the impression that it is applicable to all the employees. On the above aspect, Mr. Vasavada, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 does not dispute that the Reference was limited only to those three categories of employees and thus, we clarify only to this extent that the interim relief that we have affirmed is limited to the classes of employees which are covered by the terms of Reference.
The application is, thus, devoid of any substance and the same is accordingly disposed of in terms of our above observation.
(BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, CJ.) (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) pirzada/-
Page 4 of 4