Gujarat High Court
Sureshbhai vs Gujarat on 11 November, 2011
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/4986/2008 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4986 of 2008
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2938 of 2004
=========================================================
SURESHBHAI
YADAVBHAI CHAUDHARI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
ELECTRICITY BOARD & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRS
SANGEETA N PAHWA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE
NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 26/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. In this Civil Application, the applicant has prayed below mentioned reliefs:
(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this Civil Application in the interest of justice;
(B) Yours Lordships may be pleased to direct the opponent No.1 Company to pay minimum wages or to reinstate the applicant in services as per the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in Special Civil Application No.2938 of 2003 vide order dated 09.03.2004, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition.
2. Today during the hearing of the application, Ms.Vinita for Ms. Pahwa, learned advocate referred to the reply affidavit filed by the respondent Board. She relied upon below mentioned averments in para 3 of the reply affidavit of the respondent Board.
"It is also further respectfully stated and submitted that there is vacancy/ies available in the cadre of Helper, at present."
3. She submitted that even from the averments in the affidavit, there are vacancies available in the cadre of Helper and that therefore, the respondents must offer work to the applicant or they may be so directed, so that the applicant may get work on regular wages instead of last drawn wages, which is only Rs.300/-.
4. As it can be seen from the relief prayed for by the applicant, the applicant has made alternative prayer namely that either the respondent Board may offer work to the applicant or alternatively the applicant may be paid minimum wages instead of wages last drawn by the applicant before his termination. During hearing Ms. Vinita submitted that at this stage, the applicant would not press the prayer for relief for minimum wages, if the respondent is, in view of the affidavit, directed to offer the work to the applicant. Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that there is typographical error in para 3 of the affidavit and actually there are no vacancies.
5. By way of petition, the present opponents have challenged the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) Nos.264 of 1987 and other cognate Reference proceedings, whereby the Industrial Tribunal has directed the present opponent Board to start assigning the work to the concerned workman/complainant and also to pay all the benefits including salary for intervening period. The said award is brought in challenge by the opponent Board in this group of petitions being Special Civil Application No.15383 of 2003, 2937 of 2004 to 2950 of 2004. While admitting the petition, this Court (Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayant Patel) has by order dated 9.3.2004 categorically observed that :
"
If as per the petitioners the respondents are not gainfully employed it would be open to the petitioners to restore the status of Nominal Muster Roll Employees and to offer work on the same basis with a view to avoid liability under Section 17B of the I.D. Act."
6. This Court has already desired that the respondent Board, so as to avoid liability under Section 17B, should restore the status of the concerned persons as "Nominal Muster Roll Employees". Thus, it is again clarified that the respondent may consider offering work to the applicant on the same status i.e. "Nominal Muster Roll Employmees", which would obviously be without prejudice to the contention of the petitioner and also subject to the outcome of the petition.
7. In view of the fact that the petitions are pending since 2003-2004, office is directed to place the petitions for final hearing in the week commencing from 10.9.2008. Since the petition is fixed for final hearing, the relief for payment of minimum wages is not considered or granted at this stage.
8. With the aforesaid observation and clarification, this Civil Application is disposed.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) ynvyas Top