Gujarat High Court
Ipcl vs Ipcl on 16 July, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri
Bench: Ks Jhaveri
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9872/1999 1/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9872 of 1999
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as 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 ?
=========================================================
IPCL
- Petitioner(s)
Versus
IPCL
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
NANAVATI
ASSOCIATES for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR NK MAJMUDAR for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 16/07/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1.0 By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgement and award dated 16.02.1999 published on 29.05.1999 in Reference (I.T.) No. 621 of 1982 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara directing the petitioner-Corporation to give similar increment and consequential benefits to eight employees listed at Annexure A to the statement of claim as were given to four employees listed at Annexure B as being illegal, unjust, improper, against the weight of evidence and against the terms of the settlement and service rules.
2.0 The petitioner-Corporation entered into a long term settlement dated 02.12.1980 in the course of conciliation proceedings effective from 01.10.1979 for a period of four years. One of the terms of the said settlement inter alia stipulated that the existing pay scales as on 30.09.1979 were to be revised with effect from 01.10.1979 i.e the effective date of settlement. The present controversy is connected with the pre-revised scale of Rs. 615-960 which was revised to Rs.640-1145 under the aforesaid settlement. The main grievance of the respondent union is that group of eight employees listed at Annexure A of the statement of claim hereinabove were paid one increment less as compared to group of four employees at Annexure B of Statement of claim. Since the said controversy could not be settled before the Conciliation Officer, the same was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara vide Reference (I.T.) No. 621 of 1982 for adjudication. The Labour Court has passed the Judgement and order as stated hereinabove.
3.0 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record it is found that present controversy arose in view of misreading/misunderstanding of Rule 5(d) of Pay Fixation Rules by the respondent Union which provides for refixation of pay on promotion to a higher post which reads as under:
The pay of an employee appointed or promoted to a higher post may be refixed on the date, the next increment would have been drawn, had the employee continued in the lower post, with reference to the notional pay in the scale of the lower post on that date, if this refixation is beneficial to the employee. The date of next increment in the higher scale will fall on the first anniversary of such fixation.
4.0 Looking to the findings of the Industrial Tribunal, it is found that the Tribunal has not examined certain aspects as contemplated in Rule 5(d) of the Pay Fixation Rules. The Tribunal has also not given reasons as to why the respondents-employees are entitled to the benefit. It requires to be considered closely by the tribunal.
5.0 In the premises aforesaid, the award dated 16.02.1999 passed in Reference ( I.T.) No. 621 of 1982 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal. While considering the claim of the respondents-employee, the Tribunal will give reasons as to how all contingencies are fulfilled by each of the employee and they are entitled for the benefit. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
6.0 Office is directed to send the papers within a period of fifteen days from today. The Labour Court shall hear the matter and decide the same on or before 31.08.2011.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru* Top