IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 6186 of 1996
to
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATIONNo 6195 of 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------
DY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Versus
MANIBEN JINA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
MS NAYANA V PANCHAL for Petitioner
MS DEVYANI N.DAVE FOR MR JT TRIVEDI for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.R.CALLA
Date of Order: 05/05/97
COMMON ORAL ORDER
These ten Special Civil Applications are directed
against the award dated 28.12.1995 passed as a common
order by the Labour Court, Junagadh with regard to the
following workmen :
[1]Shri Devshi Karsan.
[2]Shri Karsan Gokal.
[3]Shri Kama Deva.
[4]Shri Hira Rama.
[5]Shri Chana Vagha.
[6]Shri Rani Ghela.
[7]Shri Maniben Jina.
[8]Shri Ratilal Kana.
[9]Shri Lakhman Bhoja.
[10]Shri Narah Arjan.
whereby the Labour Court has granted the relief
of reinstatement to each of the concerned workmen with
continuity of service and other benefits but without
backwages. The Labour Court considered that on 29.9.1987
the applicants were intimated that from 31.10.1987 their
services will be terminated as the road work was
completed. The Labour Court also considered the
grievance made on behalf of the workmen that it was a
case of violation of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has also
considered the case which was set up on behalf of the
Deputy Executive Engineer, Junagadh i.e. the present
petitioner that the applicants were served with the
notice, they were offered the retrenchment compensation
and they refused to take the same and as such there was
no breach of any provision of law. It was also noticed
by the Labour Court that the applicants were appointed
for a particular work and on completion of work their
services were terminated and the arguments raised on
behalf of the Deputy Executive Engineer that the work had
been completed and thereafter the services of the
concerned workmen were terminated and therefore there was
no question of reinstatement. The Labour Court has held
that it was not proved that the notices were served. It
is also held that it was not proved that the compensation
was sent and therefore the Labour Court has held that it
was a case of violation of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H and
therefore, the workmen were entitled to be reinstated.
However, the Labour Court has also noticed that they were
casual workers and therefore, the backwages were denied
and the relief of reinstatement was granted.
I have heard learned Counsel Ms.Nayana Panchal.
She pointedly invited the attention of this Court to the
notice dated 30.9.1987 and this notice dated 30.9.1987 is
self explanatory at least with regard to the violation of
section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. As per this
notice, the services of the concerned workmen were
terminated i.e. the concerned workmen were retrenched
from 31.10.1987 and in this very notice, it is mentioned
that the dues under the Industrial Disputes Act, the
wages and compensation under section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act and any other dues, may be
collected from the office of the Executive Engineer on
7.11.1987. It is therefore ,clear that the workmen were
retrenched from 31.10.1987 and the retrenchment
compensation and the dues under sections 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, were not paid on or before
31.10.1987 that is a date from which the retrenchment
became effective. In the order itself, it is mentioned
that the dues are to be collected on 7.11.1987. It is,
therefore, proved on the face of the notice dated
30.9.1987 itself that the pre requisite and condition
precedent to the retrenchment as envisaged under section
25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, were not followed
rather the same have been violated resulting the
retrenchment to be void. In this view of the matter, the
finding of the Labour Court that these workmen had been
retrenched in violation of Section 25F cannot be
interfered with and whereas no backwages whatsoever have
been granted, there is no question of now going into the
aspects relating to the backwages. Thus, I find that the
impugned award with regard to each of these ten concerned
workmen does not warrant any interference and none of
these ten Special Civil Applications can be entertained.
Accordingly, all these ten Special Civil Applications are
hereby dismissed and the notice issued by this Court in
each of the matters is hereby discharged.
It appears from the order sheet dated 29.1.1997
that the impugned award was stayed by this Court on
condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of
Rs.10,000/- in the first instance towards the costs of
the petition and the notice was issued on the condition
as aforesaid. Ms.Devyani N.Dave has submitted that
whereas the petitions are being dismissed an amount of
Rs.1,000/- deposited towards costs in each of the
petition i.e. a sum of Rs.10,000/- in all may be awarded
to the petitioners. The document dated 26.3.1997 filed
by Ms.N.V.Panchal, Advocate for the petitioner shows that
this amount of Rs.10,000/- has already been deposited in
cash in the registry of the High Court against costs i.e.
Rs.1,000/- per petition. Since the concerned workmen
have been dragged to this litigation which has resulted
into rejection of this petition they are entitled to get
this amount of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly, it is ordered
that this sum of Rs.10,000/- is hereby permitted to be
withdrawn by the concerned workmen and/or the legal heirs
of the workmen in case the concerned workman has expired,
at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per petition. Ten concerned
workmen may therefore withdraw this amount from the
registry and each of the workman out of ten concerned
workmen shall be entitled to withdraw Rs.1,000/-.
Date :5.5.1997.[M.R.Calla, J.]