Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5937/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5937 of 2011
=========================================================
JASUBEN
APABHAI RATHOD W/O LATE APABHAI RATHOD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RAJESH P MANKAD for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 28/09/2011
ORAL
ORDER
After
the matter was heard for some time the controversy between the
parties, which comes to light is the interpretation of para 2 of the
oral judgement dated 30th August 2010 in Special Civil
Application No.10570 of 2004 of this Court (Coram: M.R. Shah, J.).
Para 2 reads as under:
“2. Shri
Mankad, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents
herein-heirs of the original workman have stated at the bar that if
the petitioners are directed to pay the retirement benefits, which
are available to the original workman, treating him as daily wager,
the respondents will be satisfied and they have no objection if the
impugned judgement and award declared by the Industrial tribunal is
set aside.”
2. It
is the case of the learned advocate for the petitioner that what was
waived by the petitioner there, were the benefits flowing from
the judgement and award of the Industrial Tribunal and therefore, the
petitioner is entitled to claim retiral benefits even if the
deceased-workman was treated as a daily wager. Making it more clear
learned advocate Mr.Mankad submitted that even if he is treated to be
a daily wager since the date he joined services of the District
Panchayat, Amreli by virtue of Government Resolution dated 17th
October 1988, and another Government Resolution dated 5th
June 1989, the family will be entitled to receive pension also.
3. As against
this, the case of the learned advocate for the
respondent-establishment is that the petitioner having waived his
right flowing from the judgement and award, cannot claim any other
benefits than what is already paid.
4. Taking into
consideration the aforesaid controversy between the learned advocates
it is deemed proper that the Registry be directed to place the matter
before the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice to pass necessary orders
to enable the parties to address the learned Judge for interpretation
of the aforesaid para 2.
(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)
karim
Top