Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1845/2007 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1845 of 2007
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15852 of 2004
=========================================================
LAXMANBHAI
DALABHAI CHOKIYAT - Appellant(s)
Versus
SHENA
DARIYA GORADA GRAM PANCHAYAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
YV SHAH for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR JAYRAJ CHAUHAN for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 07/03/2008
ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT)
This
Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred by
the workman against the judgment and order dated 15th
June, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in above Special Civil
Application No. 15852 of 2004.
2. The
workman is engaged by the respondent Village Panchayat on a
consolidated monthly pay of Rs. 300 for operating the water works.
The workman filed Recovery Application No. 147 of 2000 in the Labour
Court, Godhra for recovery of minimum wages from the date of his
appointment on 20th August, 1996. According to the
workman, he had to operate pump and distribute water for 9 hours a
day. According to the respondent, the workman was engaged for 2
hours daily, one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening. The
learned Labour Court by its judgment and order dated 11th
February, 2003 allowed the application, directed the respondent to
pay a sum of Rs. 60,225/-, the amount of difference computed on the
basis of the minimum wages. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent
preferred above referred Special Civil Application before this Court,
which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the
present Appeal.
3. Evidently,
the claim made by the appellant for minimum wages involved disputed
questions of fact i.e., according to the workman he was serving for 9
hours daily, while according to the respondent, the appellant was
engaged for 2 hours daily. We are in agreement with the learned
Single Judge that the said disputed questions of fact could not have
been entertained by the Court below in exercise of power under
Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Besides, for
deficit in payment of wages as determined under the Minimum Wages
Act, 1958, the remedy lies before the competent authority under
Section 20 of that Act. No case for interference is made out. The
Appeal is dismissed in limine.
[
Ms. R.M. Doshit, J. ]
[
K.M. Thaker, J. ]
rmr.
Top