Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1012/2010 3/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1012 of 2010
=========================================================
MAFATLAL
SHIVABHAI BHANGI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PRABHAKAR UPADYAY for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 09/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay appearing on behalf of
petitioner.
The
petitioner employee has challenge order passed by Labour Court,
Himatnagar in Recovery Application No.14 of 1998 dated 6th
March 2009. The Labour Court has granted leave salary for a period of
532 days from 10th
May 1976 to 1st
August 1998 which comes to Rs.75,528/- with cost of Rs.1,000/-.
Learned
advocate Mr. Upadhyay pointed out while reading Paragraph 6 of
Recovery Application that total claim has been made for leave salary
which comes to Rs.1,323/- considering Rs.141=97 ps., per day salary
and total amount comes to Rs.1,87,826=30 ps., but, Labour Court has
not granted total amount of leave salary which has been claimed by
petitioner before Labour Court.
This
Recovery Application is filed by petitioner under Section 33(C)(2) of
ID Act, 1947. The petitioner was working as Sweeper in ST Workshop,
Himatnagar. He was working w.e.f. 10th
May 1976 not getting 2nd
and 4th
Saturday off and public holidays and also working on eight hours
basis, therefore, claim of over time was made before Labour Court as
well as claim of 13% Special Pay also made before Labour Court.
Reply
was filed by Corporation vide Ex.6 opposing Recovery Application.
Before Labour Court, petitioner Mafatlal Shivlal Bhangi was examined
vide Ex.9 which was cross-examined by advocate of Corporation. On
behalf of Corporation, one Senior Labour Officer and Administrative
Officer Babubhai Patel was examined vide Ex.50. Thereafter, documents
have been produced by Corporation. The Labour Court has examined
settlement as well as claim made by petitioner. The question is
whether petitioner was working in administrative staff or workshop
staff has been considered by Labour Court while deciding Recovery
Application.
The
Labour Court, after considering Ex.69 and Ex.70 as well as Circular
No.24 dated 5th
August 1970, come to conclusion that petitioner was an employee
working in Workshop, but, as an administrative side, therefore,
entitled 33 Earned Leave and 9 paid holidays. On that basis, it has
been calculated by Labour
Court from 1976 to 1998 and thereafter, w.e.f. 1st
August 1998, the said benefit has been extended in favour of
petitioner. Therefore, Labour Court has come to conclusion that
petitioner has pre-existing right prima facie in claiming leave
salary w.e.f. June, 1976 to December, 1970 and 1977 to 1997 and upto
1998 7 months, which total comes to 532 days leave salary which
has been granted by Labour Court in favour of petitioner.
It
is not in dispute between the parties that w.e.f. 1st
August 1998, benefit of 2nd
and 4th
Saturday has been extended in favour of petitioner, therefore, the
period from June, 1976 to July 1998, the calculation has been made by
Labour Court about 2nd
and 4th
Saturday which has not been extended and that period comes to 532
days and for that, amount has been awarded by Labour Court in favour
of petitioner. Therefore, calculation which has been referred in
Paragraph 6 of Recovery Application, wherein, petitioner has
calculated up to the date of filing of Recovery Application ignoring
that such benefit was extended w.e.f. 1st
August 1998, therefore, contention raised by learned advocate Mr.
Prabhakar Upadhyay cannot be accepted in light of discussion made by
Labour Court in its order.
Therefore,
according to my opinion, Labour Court has rightly examined the matter
on the basis of evidence on record, for that, Labour Court has not
committed any error which requires interference by this
Court while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
Therefore,
there is no substance in present petition. Accordingly, present
petition is dismissed.
[H.K.
RATHOD, J.]
#Dave
Top
