Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/2628/2008 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 2628 of 2008
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15383 of 2003
=========================================================
BHIMRAO
C AAGETE - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
ELECTRICITY BOARD & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRS
SANGEETA N PAHWA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS LILU K BHAYA for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 26/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. In
this Civil Application, the applicant has prayed below mentioned
reliefs:
(A) Your
Lordships may be pleased to allow this Civil Application in the
interest of justice;
(B)
Yours Lordships may be pleased to direct the opponent No.1 Company to
pay minimum wages or to reinstate the applicant in services as per
the directions issued by this Hon’ble court in Special Civil
Application No.15383 of 2003 vide order dated 09.03.2004, pending the
admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition.
2. Today
during the hearing of the application, Ms.Vinita for Ms. Pahwa,
learned advocate referred to the reply affidavit filed by the
respondent Board. She relied upon below mentioned averments in para 3
of the reply affidavit of the respondent Board.
“It
is also further respectfully stated and submitted that there is
vacancy/ies available in the cadre of Helper, at present.”
3. She
submitted that even from the averments in the affidavit, there are
vacancies available in the cadre of Helper and that therefore, the
respondents must offer work to the applicant or they may be so
directed, so that the applicant may get work on regular wages instead
of last drawn wages, which is only Rs.300/-.
4. As
it can be seen from the relief prayed for by the applicant, the
applicant has made alternative prayer namely that either the
respondent Board may offer work to the applicant or alternatively
the applicant may be paid minimum wages instead of wages last drawn
by the applicant before his termination. During hearing Ms. Vinita
submitted that at this stage, the applicant would not press the
prayer for relief for minimum wages, if the respondent is, in view of
the affidavit, directed to offer the work to the applicant. Ms.
Bhaya, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that there is
typographical error in para 3 of the affidavit and actually there are
no vacancies.
5. By
way of petition, the present opponents have challenged the award
passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) Nos.277 of 1987
and other cognate reference proceedings, whereby the Industrial
Tribunal has directed the present opponent Board to start assigning
the work to the concerned workman/complainant and also to pay all the
benefits including salary for intervening period. The said award is
brought in challenge by the opponent Board in this group of petitions
being Special Civil Application No.15383 of 2003, 2937 of 2004 to
2950 of 2004. While admitting the petition, this Court (Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jayant Patel) has by order dated 9.3.2004
categorically observed that :
”
If as per the petitioners the respondents are not gainfully employed
it would be open to the petitioners to restore the status of
Nominal Muster Roll Employees and to offer work on the same basis
with a view to avoid liability under Section 17B of the I.D.
Act.”
6. This
Court has already desired that the respondent Board, so as to avoid
liability under Section 17B, should restore the status of the
concerned persons as “Nominal Muster Roll Employees”. Thus,
it is again clarified that the respondent may consider offering work
to the applicant on the same status i.e. “Nominal Muster Roll
Employmees”, which would obviously be without prejudice to the
contention of the petitioner and also subject to the outcome of the
petition.
7. In
view of the fact that the petitions are pending since 2003-2004,
office is directed to place the petitions for final hearing in the
week commencing from 10.9.2008. Since the petition is fixed for final
hearing, the relief for payment of minimum wages is not considered or
granted at this stage.
8. With
the aforesaid observation and clarification, this Civil Application
is disposed.
(K.M.THAKER,
J.)
ynvyas
Top