Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5796/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5796 of 2010
=========================================================
GANESH
KOYAJI PARMAR DECEASED THRO. LEGAL HEIR SAVI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
AGRICULTURE
PRODUCE MARKET & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MS
SAJNIKA R PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR SJ SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR ND
SONGARA for Respondent(s) : 1,
UNSERVED-EXPIRED (N) for
Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 19/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the common order passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara in
Recovery Application Nos.576/1993, 177/1994, 153/1994, 14/1994,
8/1995, 133/1998, 713/1998, 743/1998, 67/2000, 709/2001, 43/2002 &
159/2003, whereby, the said applications came to be rejected.
2. The
facts in brief are that the original petitioner was serving as a
Watchman with the respondents on a monthly salary of Rs.426/-. On
01.12.1983 the services of the original petitioner came to be
terminated by the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said action,
the original petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which,
ultimately, culminated into a reference being Reference (LCV)
No.321/1984 before the Court below. The Labour Court, after
considering the evidence on record, allowed the reference of the
original workman and directed the respondents to reinstate the
workman on his original post with continuity of service and full back
wages. Thereafter, the workman came to be reinstated in service.
3. On
the ground that the respondents had not paid him the regular salary,
the original workman filed recovery applications u/s.33(C)2 of the
I.D. Act. However, the said applications came to be rejected by the
Labour Court and only the difference of minimum wages and gratuity
was awarded, by way of the impugned order. Hence, this petition.
4. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. It transpires from the record that the petitioner-workman
was serving as a Watchman with the respondents on a purely temporary
basis. He was never appointed on a permanent post. The benefits which
were claimed by the petitioner-workman in the Recovery Applications
filed by him are usually given to the permanent employees. Since the
petitioner-workman was never appointed on permanent basis, he was not
entitled to receive any benefits, which are, otherwise, available to
the permanent employees.
5. Pursuant
to the award passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCV)
No.321/1984, the petitioner-workman was reinstated in service on his
original post and he had also drawn salary of a temporary Watchman.
The said fact is evident from the Salary Sheet at Exs.28 to 30,
wherein, the petitioner-workman had put his signature. When the
petitioner-workman had expired, he was serving as a temporary
Watchman, a fact which was also accepted by his wife, who appeared in
the capacity of a legal heir. Therefore, the deceased-workman was
only awarded the difference of minimum wages and gratuity.
6. Looking
to the facts of the case and the entire evidence on record, I am of
the opinion that the Court below was completely justified in
rejecting the Recovery Applications filed by the original petitioner.
I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the
findings arrived at by the Court below in the impugned order and
hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same.
7. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Notice is
discharged. No costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top