SCA/8591/2008 3/ 5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8591 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 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 civil judge ? ========================================================= JAYANTIBHAI KUBERBHAI CHAVDA - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR P C CHAUDHARI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR KD PANDYA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 27/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT
This
petition is preferred with a prayer to direct the respondents to pay
wages and other benefits to the petitioner from the date of the award
till the actual reinstatement came to be effected i.e. till
28.4.2005. The petitioner has also claimed interest at the rate of
12%.
The
petitioner seeks to rely upon the judgment and order dated 25.7.2005
passed by this court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S.Jhaveri) in
special civil application No.533 of 2000 wherein, the court has
observed that:-
ýS6.0 .
. . . . The respondent shall be given the benefit of continuity of
service on 30.09.1985 as directed by this court and shall be given
all benefits from the date of the publication of the award till he is
reinstated in service. The said benefits to be paid within a period
of three months from the receipt of writ of this order. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.ýý
It
is, on the basis of the said observations, that the petitioner has
raised his claim for payment of wages and other benefits until the
date of his reinstatement i.e. the benefit of wages, etc., for the
ýSpost awardýý period.
It
is incomprehensible as to on what basis the petitioner is claiming
the payment with interest at the rate of 12%. On one hand, the
petitioner is raising his claim on the observations made in July,
2005 by this court in the aforesaid order which does not contain any
direction as regards interest and yet the petitioner claims interest
at the rate of 12% as well as the payment of wages for post award
period.
It
appears that the petitioner made claim for the said amount and
benefits before the competent authority. The concerned authority
appears to have given reply by its communication dated 28.4.2008.
However, the petitioner, despite the communication dated 28.4.2008
seeks to allege on the basis of the communication dated 28.11.2005
that his claim has been rejected and he has not been paid any amount
or benefit for the post award period until he was actually
reinstated.
It
is pertinent to note that the petitioner is referring to the
communication dated 28.11.2005, however, the petitioner is
overlooking the communication dated 28.4.2008 wherein, it is
mentioned and clarified that the payment of wages and other benefits
as were required to be paid in view of the judgment dated 25.7.2005
of this court for the period from 30.9.1985 to 28.4.2005 have been
paid to the petitioner. The said communication dated 28.4.2008 gives
out that the petitioner has been paid all benefits which were payable
for the period from 30.9.1985 to 28.4.2005.
Under
the circumstances, there does not appear to be any basis for
petitioner’s claim and/or any justification to grant direction to the
respondents as prayed for in present petition. However, if the
petitioner has any grievance regarding any alleged short payment,
then, the petitioner may make necessary representation to the
concerned authority, who may look into the representation of the
petitioner.
At
this stage, Mr. Chaudhari for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner may be permitted to approach the labour court under
section 33-C(2) for his claim. If even after the communication dated
28.4.2008, there is at all any claim then the petitioner may pursue
the remedy available to him in accordance with law. However, present
petition for such claim, more particularly, after communication dated
28.4.2008, does not deserve to be entertained. Hence, present
petition is dismissed. Notice discharged. No order as to costs.
[K.M.Thaker,
J.]
kdc