Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat & vs Shukhdev Sing Vikram Sing & on 13 December, 2016
Author: G.R.Udhwani
Bench: G.R.Udhwani
C/SCA/17672/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17672 of 2015
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Petitioner(s)
Versus
SHUKHDEV SING VIKRAM SING & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
DIPESH D CHHAYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
KHUSHBU D CHHAYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 13/12/2016
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner - State has challenged the award dated 19th March, 2015, passed in Reference (T) No. 323 of 2003 by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar. It is the common ground that the similar petition being Special Civil Application No. 17820 of 2015 in the case of State of Gujarat and Another v. Kanaiyalal Laxmishanker Jani and another came to be decided by this Court in the following terms.
"1. Challenge in this petition is made by the State Authorities to the award passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (T) No.17 of 2001 dated 19.03.2015. By the impugned award, the Labour Court has held that the action of the petitioner authorities of Page 1 of 5 HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Wed Dec 14 00:28:20 IST 2016 C/SCA/17672/2015 ORDER terminating the service of the respondent with effect from 15.06.2000 was illegal. The Labour Court has ordered the reinstatement with continuity of service with 30% back wages.
2. Mr. Rashesh Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that there was policy decision of the Government dated 03.01.2000 not to engage any workman on muster roll. The said instruction of the Narmada Water Resources and Water Supply Department was circulated on 04.01.2000. It is submitted that at some places the said instruction is referred to as dated 04.01.2000 but its actual date is 03.01.2000, which is circulated on 04.01.2001. It is submitted that in view of the said instructions, the services of the workman was discontinued, therefore the same ought to have been interfered with by the Labour Court. Without prejudice to this, it is further submitted that, no back wages should have been awarded. It is submitted that this petition be entertained.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Chhaya, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the workman was in employment for a period of not less than ten years. It is submitted that, the Labour Court has taken note of the aspect that, the instruction relied by the State was not to engage fresh persons, on muster roll. It is submitted that, after more than a decade, the discontinuance of the service of the workman is rightly interfered with by the Labour Court and no interference be made by this Court. It is submitted that this petition be dismissed.
4. Mr.Chhaya, learned advocate for the respondent workman, on instructions, states that the respondent is a poor workman and from his side, he wants the controversy be put at rest and therefore he states that, the workman shall not press for the back wages, as ordered by the Labour Court. He however further states that, this concession shall not bind him, in the event he is dragged into further litigation by the petitioner authorities. It is submitted that this concession be appropriately moulded by the Court, while recording the final order.
Page 2 of 5HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Wed Dec 14 00:28:20 IST 2016 C/SCA/17672/2015 ORDER
5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds as under.
5.1 It is not in dispute that the respondent workman was in employment with the petitioner authorities for about ten years. The said period is between 1990 to 2000 at two sub divisions under the administrative control of the Executive Engineer, Bhavnagar, who employed the respondent at different time. The service of the workman of about a decade is an admitted position. The stand of the petitioner authorities is also quite categorical that in view of the circular of the Government dated 03.01.2000 / 04.01.2000, his service could not be continued. The Labour Court has taken note of this argument and has found that the said circular did not contemplate the discontinuance of service of the workman, who were already in service for more than a decade. Even otherwise, after more than ten years of service, the workman can not be asked not to come to work, without any procedure, prescribed under the law. On overall consideration, this Court finds that the findings recorded by the Labour Court that, discontinuance of service of the respondent workman was illegal, is not erroneous and the same does not call for any interference. This petition therefore needs to be dismissed so far the reinstatement is concerned.
5.2 Coming to the next question of back wages, the Labour Court in its judgment and discretion has awarded 30% back wages. This Court finds that, in the facts of this case, the same also does not call for any interference.
5.3 At this stage, reference needs to be made to the concession given by the workman as noted in para:4 above. It is to the effect that, he shall not press for the back wages, as ordered by the Labour Court. He has however further stated that, this concession shall not bind him, in the event he is dragged into further litigation by the petitioner authorities.
Page 3 of 5HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Wed Dec 14 00:28:20 IST 2016 C/SCA/17672/2015 ORDER
6. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed.
6.1 This petition is dismissed.
6.2 The impugned award passed by the Labour Court is confirmed.
6.3 The petitioner authorities are directed to reinstate the respondent workman in service within a period of six weeks from today. The wages from the date of award till actual date of reinstatement shall be paid within a period of three months from today.
6.4 The petitioner authorities are under legal obligation to make payment of back wages of 30% as ordered by the Labour Court. The arrears towards back wages flowing from the impugned award of the Labour Court shall be paid within a period of four months from today, however the respondent workman is directed to abide by his statement noted in para:4 above. It is further clarified that the said concession shall not bind the workman, in the event he is dragged into further litigation by the State Authorities.
6.5 Subject to above observations and directions, notice is discharged. No order as to costs."
2. Under the circumstances, for the reasons recorded in Special Civil Application No. 17820 of 2015, the petition is dismissed and the direction as at para 6.3 and 6.4 in the above petition shall also be the direction in this petition.
3. Subject to the above observations and directions, notice is discharged. No order as to costs.
(G.R.UDHWANI, J.) Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Wed Dec 14 00:28:20 IST 2016 C/SCA/17672/2015 ORDER syed/ Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Wed Dec 14 00:28:20 IST 2016