Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3826/1999 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3826 of
1999
=========================================================
JATINKUMAR
MANHARLAL CHAMPANERI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
VIRAMGAM
MUNICIPALITY & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SK BUKHARI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR MB FAROOQUI for Respondent(s) :
1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 2,
RULE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 3,
MR RA MISHRA for Respondent(s) :
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 28/02/2011
ORAL ORDER
Heard
learned Advocate Mr. SK Bukhari for petitioner Jatinkumar Manharlal
Champaneri, learned Advocate Mr. MB Farooqui for respondent Viramgam
Municipality and learned AGP Mr. Anand L. Sharma for Assistant
Labour Commissioner and Additional Collector, Ahmedabad. Learned
Advocate Mr. RA Mishra is appearing for respondent NO.4 Vajubhai M.
Dhodia, Municipal Councilor.
Brief
facts of present petition are as under:
Petitioner
was initially appointed on post of Clerk on daily wages with
Respondent No.1 Municipality with effect from 15.11.1990 and,
thereafter, his service was terminated by oral order dated 10th
August, 1992 against which he has approached Labour Court by way of
Reference (LCA) NO.2540 of 1992 before Ahmedabad Labour Court.
During pendency of said reference, proposal was given by Viramgam
Municipality and on that basis, it was agreed upon both parties to
reinstate petitioner in service on original post with effect from
5.4.1995 and respondent Viramgam Municipality has also agreed to pay
50% back wages for a period from 10.8.1992 to 4.4.1995. Award was
passed by Labour Court in terms of aforesaid settlement on 4th
April, 1995. Accordingly, workman was reinstated by Viramgam
Municipality as daily wager with effect from 22nd May,
1995 and thereafter, complaint was made by petitioner to Labour
Commissioner that he was not reinstated on permanent post of clerk
and on that basis, notice was issued by respondent NO.2 to
respondent NO.1 Municipality and thereafter, petitioner was
appointed on permanent post of clerk with effect from 1st
December, 1998 and he is serving as permanent clerk. Respondent NO.4
has approached respondent NO.3 Collector with an application to set
aside aforesaid settlement while exercising powers under section 258
of Gujarat Municipalities Act. Collector has set aside order qua
resolution by which petitioner was given appointment on permanent
basis and therefore, present petition is filed by petitioner.
When
matter is taken up for hearing, learned Advocate Mr. Bukhari
appearing for petitioner has submitted that aforesaid settlement has
been already implemented by respondent Municipality and workman is
working with respondent Municipality as a permanent clerk with
effect from 1st December, 1998 and also received 50 per
cent back wages as per terms of settlement. Learned Advocate Mr.
Farooqui appearing for respondent Municipality has submitted that
unanimous resolution was passed by Municipality on 14th
December, 1995. Additional Collector has passed order on 4th
April, 1999 while exercising powers under section 258 of the Gujarat
Municipalities Act.
In
this matter, affidavit in reply is also filed by respondent
Mamlatdar, Nagarpalika Ahmedabad, Mr. SG Gamit dated 17.3.2001.
Further affidavit is also filed by petitioner page 51 wherein para 1
to 4 are quoted as under:
1. I say that
initially, I was appointed, with effect from 15.01.1990, on the post
of Clerk on daily wages by Respondent NO.1. Thereafter, being
settlement arrived at before the Labour Court, I have been made
permanent on the post of Clerk with effect from 01.12.1998.
2. I say that in past
also, the Respondent NO.1 Municipality made services of various
daily wagers viz. (1) Mahebubmiya Ahmedmiya Malek, (2) Vinod
Mohanlal Loladiya, (3) Prakash Kanaiyalal Desai, (4) Manubhai
Kalubhai Parmar, (5) Devalbhai K. Vantiya, (6) Dilip G. Panara, (7)
Shankar M. Chavda and (8) Hanifsha Akbarsha Madar as per Resolution
NO. 6 dated 30.10.1996 passed by the Resolution No.1 Municipality on
the basis of compromise arrived at in complaint (IT) NO. 55 of 1992
before the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad. Annexed hereto and marked
as ANNEXURE L
is the copy of Award passed by the Tribunal and ANNEXURE
‘M’ IS THE COPY OF
Resolution dated 30.10.1996. I say that over and above, the
Respondent NO.1 Nagarpalika made services of the following daily
wagers as permanent:-
Sr.
No.
Name
With
effect from
1
Dinesh
G. Chavda
11.10.1996
2
Narendra
T. Parmar
6.10.1996
3
Anil
B. Makwana
11.10.1996
4
Gautam
C. Parmar
11.10.1996
5
Hanif
R.Shahjada
11.10.1996
6.
Faruk
A. Arab
11.10.1996
7.
Bhikhabhai
M.Thoriya
1.2.2001
8.
Aiyubsha
Rahemansha
31.1.1996
9
Ashik
A. Gilani
1.7.1999
10
Ashok
B. Makwana
1.10.1999
11
Chamanbhai
Punjabhai
29.10.1997
12
Minaxi
H.Jani
1.10.1999
13
Hasmukh
C. Solanki
3.12.1996
14
Premila
S.Desai
1.04.1997
15
Bhupendra
M. Parikh
13.11.1996
3. I say that out of the
aforesaid persons, so far as (1) Bhikhabhai M.Tho9riya, (2) Ashif
A.Gilani, (3) Ashok B.Makwana, (4) Minaxi H.Jani and (5) Shankar M.
Chavda are concerned, their services have been made permanent after
I have been given permanent appointment with effect from 01.12.1998.
4. I say that as
aforesaid, daily wagers have been made permanent by the Respondent
NO.1 Municipality and as I have also been made permanent, with
effect from 01.12.1998 and the Respondent Municipality also started
deducting Provident Fund as per Nagarpalika Provident Fund Rules as
well as Bombay Civil Services Rules, the status of permanent service
given to the petitioner does not require interference in the
interest of justice. Annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE ‘ N’
is the copy of Application dated 8.5.2003 along with orders passed
by Respondent No.1 Municipality deducting my Provident Fund with
effect from 1.4.2003.
In
view of aforesaid affidavit in reply filed by petitioner and
considering averments made therein, settlement is fully implemented
in favour of petitioner by Viramgam Municipality and with effect
from 1st December, 1998, petitioner has been made
permanent on the post of Clerk in Municipality. Therefore, according
to my opinion, by passage of time, present petition has become
infructuous. However, in case of any difficulty, either party is
given liberty. Accordingly, rule is discharged. Interim relief, if
any, shall stand vacated. No order as to costs.
(H.K.
Rathod,J.)
Vyas
Top