Gujarat High Court
Jagabhai vs District on 30 March, 2011
Author: H.K.Rathod
Bench: H.K.Rathod
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/3726/2011 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR ORDERS No. 3726 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7358 of 2007
=========================================================
JAGABHAI
CHHAGANBHAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DISTRICT
PANCHAYAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRS
DT SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 30/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
In this matter, appearance is filed by learned Advocate Mrs. DT Shah for applicant, who is not appearing since last number of months in High Court. Learned Advocate Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia is appearing for opponents original petitioners. Today, learned Advocate Mrs. DT Shah for applicant has filed leave note. Even though, this Court has taken up this matter after considering leave note filed by learned Advocate Mrs. DT Shah.
As per para 12(A) of this application, applicant is praying for directing opponents to reinstate applicant in service forthwith. Earlier, Civil Application No. 13188 of 2007 was filed by present applicant with a prayer to vacate interim stay order dated 20th April, 2007 or alternatively it was prayed to direct opponents to pay last drawn wages with allowances to applicant from date of award and further it was prayed to direct opponents to pay last drawn wages every month regularly till final disposal of Special Civil Application No. 7358 of 2007. In said application, on 14th December, 2007, following order is passed by this Court:
"1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nilesh M. Shah for the applicant workman and learned advocate Ms. SK Mandavia for the opponent original petitioner.
2. Present Civil Application has been filed by the respondent workman with a prayer to direct the petitioner to pay benefits of section 17B of the ID Act, 1947 from the date of the award. Affidavit has been fled by he workman on 2nd July, 2007 wherein averment was made by the workman that he was not in job till the conclusion of the reference by award dated 10.5.2006 and from the date of the award till the date of award also, he has not got job and not gainfully employed.
3. There is no counter filed to the present application by the original petitioner against the affidavit dated 2nd July, 2007. Therefore, respondent workman is entitled for the last drawn wages under section 17B of the ID Act, 1947 from the date of the award 10th May, 2006. Learned advocate Ms. Mandavia for the petitioner has submitted that the last drawn wages u/s. 17B of the ID Act, 1947 has been paid to the workman with effect from the date of affidavit i.e. 2nd July, 2007.
4. Therefore, petitioner is directed to pay the last drawn wages under section 17B of the ID Act, 1947 with effect from 10th May, 2006 till the date of affidavit 2nd July, 2007 within the period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
5. With these observations and directions, this civil application is disposed of. "
Thereafter, another Civil Application being Civil Application NO. 12264 of 2008 is preferred by present applicant in Special Civil Application No.7358 of 2007 with same prayer to vacate ad interim order dated 20.4.2007. In that Civil Application, affidavit in reply was filed by Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat R&B Division, Halvad wherein following averments have been made in para 2,3,4 and 5:
"(2) I say and submit that the opponent has filed the aforementioned Civil Application and prayed to vacate the interim relief which was granted on 20.4.2007 and also prayed to reinstate him in service on the ground that the order of interim relief was complied with.
(3) I say and submit that in the application, the applicant has made wrong statements. The order of the Hon'ble Court is already complied with.
Not only that but I am paying regularly the amount which is available under section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On one hand, it is mentioned in the application in para 5 that the arrears of the amount from 7.5.2006 to 1.7.2007 is received by him on 29.9.2008 and on the other hand, it is mentioned that the order is not complied with. It means that deliberately he is making false statements in the application.
(4) I say and submit that it is denied that without implementing the order in right spirit the Panchayat is enjoying the fruit of stay order. It is also wrong statement that from 1.1.2008 till today the payment is not made every month. It is absolutely wrong fact for shoing that the payment is already made. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure I to the affidavit is a copy of the statement given by the Deputy Executive Engineer, to the Manager, SBS Halvad. The said statement shows that the payment is regularly being made to the respondents from October 2008 the bill is prepared and it is in process and for making wrong statement the action requires to be taken against him. He is habituated to make the application before the Honourable Court and create the impression that the order is not complied with.Therefore, the Civil Application requires to be rejected.
(5) I say and submit that the stay is granted on condition to comply with section 17B and that has been complied with and the respondent is regularly getting the salary which is available under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the Civil Application may be rejected with costs and the respondents may be ordered not to file application after application with wrong facts."
Then also, another application being Civil Application No. 3747 of 2007 was filed by present applicant with a prayer to direct opponents to reinstate applicant in service forthwith and further to direct opponents to regularly pay salary to applicant every month as prayed for in para 11(A) of application. In that application, on 26.4.2010, following order has been passed by this Court:
"1. Heard learned advocate Mr. NM Shah on behalf of applicant, learned advocate Ms. SK Mandavia appearing for respondent.
2 This application is preferred by applicant with a prayer to direct original petitioner to pay regularly last drawn wages to concern applicant.
3. Learned advocate Ms. Mandavia submitted that original petitioner is paying last drawn wages to respondent workman present applicant regularly but due to some administrative difficulty it may happen that some delay may occur. She submitted that petitioner will take care to pay last drawn wages to applicant.
4. It is directed to opponent if any amount is to be due in favour of present applicant upto 30/4/2010, let it be paid that due amount by opponent original petitioner to concern workman within a period of 15 days from date of receiving copy of present order.
5.In view of above observation and direction, present application is disposed of."
Now in present civil application, applicant is making same prayer which was made earlier in aforesaid civil applications. It is submitted by learned Advocate Ms.Mandavia for original petitioner that in main petition, petitioner has challenged award made by Labour Court, Surendrnagar in Reference No. 42 of 2006 Exh. 48 dated 10.5.2006 wherein labour court has granted only reinstatement in favour of workman without back wages of interim period. This Court has passed order on 20.4.2007 and while issuing rule, granted ad interim relief in terms of para 14(B) subject to compliance of section 17B of ID Act, 1947. Learned Advocate Ms. Mandavia for original petitioner also submitted that last drawn wages as required to be paid by petitioner under section 17B of ID Act, 1947 has been paid regularly to present applicant. She also submitted that various orders have been obtained by applicant for same relief regularly by some intervals without any justification. She also submitted that the question of granting reinstatement in favour of applicant does not arise because award of reinstatement has been stayed by this court subject to compliance of section 17B of ID Act, 1947 and petitioner is complying with said provisions of ID Act, 1947 by paying last drawn wages under sec. 17B of ID Act, 1947 to applicant workman and earlier application which was made by applicant for vacating interim relief has also been rejected by this court and interim order is not modified by this Court in special civil application NO. 7358 of 2007.
In light of this back ground, consistent repeated civil applications for same relief is unnecessarily creating burden upon Court for getting nothing because section 17B of ID Act, 1947 is fully complied with by original petitioner, therefore, on that ground, present civil application is dismissed by this Court.However, since this order has been passed by this Court in absence of learned Advocate Mrs. DT Shah because she has filed leave note for today, if she is having any grievance about this order, let she may file appropriate application before this Court. With such observations, this application is dismissed by this Court.
(H.K. Rathod,J.) Vyas Top