Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3853/2010 1/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3853 of 2010
=========================================================
PATAN
DISTRICT PANCHAYAT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
JEHABHAI
KAMABHAI & 8 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HS MUNSHAW for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
9.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 13/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw appearing on behalf of petitioner.
The
petitioner Patan District Panchayat has challenged the order
passed by Labour Court, Palanpur in Recovery Application No.909 of
1996 (Old No.3087 of 1993) decided on 3rd November 2009.
The Labour Court, Palanpur has granted difference of minimum wages in
favour of nine workmen respondents to pay Rs.11,723/- to each
workman. Against which, present petition is filed by petitioner.
Learned
advocate Mr. Munshaw submitted that petitioner used to occasionally
employed daily wagers on purely temporary and on ad-hoc basis
depending upon the availability of work and funds for the repairs and
maintenance of the roads. The respondents who worked as a daily
wagers depending upon the availability of work and funds between 1980
to 1985 and their desire to work approached the Labour Court,
Palanpur by filing Reference No.45 of 1996 praying for reinstatement,
continuity and full back wages. The Labour Court has rejected the
reference on 29th June 2000 and holding that none of
respondent had worked 240 days in any of the year and there is no
violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter,
respondents workmen preferred Special Civil Application No.6450 of
2001 which was dismissed by this Court. Against which, Letters Patent
Appeal No.909 of 2001 was preferred by respondents which has been
also rejected on 5th September 2001. Thereafter, recovery
application was preferred by respondents being Recovery Application
No.3087 of 1993 claiming huge amount of Rs.4,63,959/- which has been
renumbered as Recovery Application No.909 of 1996. Thereafter,
respondents have reduced their claim to Rs.11,722=65 ps., for each
respondents alleging that they were underpaid. The petitioner has
filed detailed reply and denied averments made in recovery
application and though workmen have not completed 240 days continue
service, Labour Court has allowed the Recovery Application on flimsy
and baseless ground, therefore, present petition is filed by
petitioner.
I
have considered submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Munsha and I
have also perused order passed by Labour Court, Palanpur in Recovery
Application. This recovery application has been filed by workmen
claiming difference of wages based on Minimum Wages Act for the
period from 1980 to 1985. Before Labour Court, workman Jehabhai
Kamabhai was examined at Ex.20 whose evidence has been considered to
be applied to each workman those who are included in recovery
application. According to Jehabhai Kamabhai, they were paid Rs.5=50
ps., per day wages which was no minimum wage and no pay slip was
given by petitioner, therefore, being a difference of minimum wage
for the period from 1980 to 1985, amount of Rs.11,722=65 ps., has
been claimed.
On
behalf of petitioner, one Sevantilal Dhudabhai Parmar was examined at
Ex.23, who admitted before Labour Court in cross-examination that
while paying Rs.5=50 ps., per day wage to workman from January, 1980
to October 1985, the dearness allowance which is required to be paid
along with daily wage, that was not paid to concerned workmen. One
witness Ex.47 Kishorbhai Gamit was examined by petitioner who also
admitted in cross-examination that at the time when daily wage was
paid to workmen, it was not included dearness allowance which was
available to workman under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act. So,
both witnesses; Shri Parmar and Shri Gamit admitted before Labour
Court that dearness allowance which has been revised being a special
allowance at every six months by Government was not paid to workmen
for the period from 1980 to 1985 along with daily wage Rs.5=50 ps.
Therefore, according to statement which has been prepared and
calculated amount as per Ex.18 by workman has been admitted by both
witnesses produced by petitioner and on that basis, Labour Court has
considered pre-exsiting right of each workman to receive minimum
wages with daily allowance fixed by Government periodically revised
after six months and that payment was not made, therefore, each
respondent workman is entitled difference of minimum wage considering
daily allowance which is available to respondents workmen, Labour
Court has granted Rs.11,723/- in favour of respondents workmen while
exercising the power under Sec.33(C)(2) of ID Act, 1947, when
pre-existing right to recover such amount has been established by
workmen and similarly admitted by two witnesses of petitioner.
Therefore, contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw that
reference of reinstatement has been rejected by Labour Court in
respect of workmen who have no connection at all to the claim of
difference of minimum wages made by workmen. Therefore, contentions
raised by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw cannot be accepted, hence,
rejected, looking to the order passed by Labour Court which is based
on admission made by two witnesses as referred above and accordingly,
Labour Court has rightly granted difference of minimum wages based on
daily allowance which was no paid to workmen along with daily wage,
therefore, Labour Court has not committed any error which requires
interference by this Court. There is no jurisdictional error
committed by Labour Court while exercising the powers under
Sec.33(C)(2) of ID Act.
Therefore,
there is no substance in present petition, accordingly, present
petition is dismissed.
It
is directed to petitioner to pay Rs.11,723/- to each respondent
workman by account payee cheque in name of each respondent workman,
after proper verification, within a period of one month from the date
of receipt of present order.
[H.K.
RATHOD, J.]
#Dave
Top