Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12457/2002 1/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12457 of 2002
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Petitioner(s)
Versus
KHEDA
VIBHAG S.T.KARMACHARI MANDAL - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
HARESH J TRIVEDI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR MUKESH H. RATHOD, MR GK RATHOD for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 28/07/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the judgment and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal,
Nadiad in Reference (ITN) No.489/1998 dated 26.06.2001, whereby, the
reference of the respondent was allowed and the petitioner has been
directed to treat the respondent as a Clerk and to give him the
pay-scale of Clerk and other related benefits from 07.07.1995 and the
period between the date of appointment to 06.07.1995 was directed to
be treated as notional.
2. The
facts in brief are that the respondent was discharging the duties of
a Clerk at the Borsad Depot of the petitioner-Corporation. In
pursuance of the death of his father, who was serving as a Conductor
with the petitioner-Corporation, the respondent applied for
compassionate appointment on the post of Clerk. After following due
procedure of recruitment, the competent authority of the
petitioner-Corporation issued the order dated 31.07.1976 to the
respondent informing that the respondent has been placed at Sr. No.1
of the merit list of candidates to be appointed as Clerk. However,
subsequently, the respondent was issued another order informing that
he has been appointed on the post of Helper.
3. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the respondent raised a dispute,
which, ultimately, culminated into a reference before the Labour
Court. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record,
allowed the same. Hence, this petition.
4. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. After appreciating the evidence on record, more
particularly, the documentary evidence which were produced vide
Ex.17, the Court below found that the respondent was discharging the
duties of a Clerk at the relevant time. The case of the petitioner
that the respondent was working as a Helper and not as a Clerk did
not weigh with the Court below on account of the fact that no
documentary evidence was produced by the petitioner to show that the
respondent was working as a Helper at the relevant time. In fact, it
appears that the respondent was being exploited inasmuch as he was
doing the work of a Clerk but, was paid the salary of a Helper.
5. The
fact that the respondent had cleared the exams for being appointed as
a Clerk is not in dispute. However, on flimsy grounds, his
appointment has been with-held. Looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case and the discussion herein above, the
petitioner-Corporation was completely unjustified in denying the
benefit of the post of Clerk to the respondent. I am in complete
agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by
the Court below in the impugned award and hence, find no reasons to
interfere with the same.
6. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top