Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8489/2011 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8489 of 2011
=========================================================
MAHENDRAGIRI
KASHIGIRI GOSWAMI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MINESH C DAVE for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 02/09/2011
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner is before this Court praying that,
“7(B) Be
pleased to issue writ, directions or order, quashing and setting
aside the impugned decision at Annexure-A. And further be pleased to
comply with the order at Annexure-E, passed by Hon’ble this Court.”
2. The
Court is yet to come across such a misconceived petition. The Court
is of the opinion that this petition is filed as a deliberate attempt
to create confusion and get some benefit out of such confusion. The
present petitioner was serving as conductor. He was removed from
service for the misconduct for which Reference (LCS) No.13 of 1995
was filed. The same was partly allowed by award and order dated
29.04.2003.
The
petitioner-workman (conductor) was dismissed from service vide order
dated 21.02.1991 (Annexure ‘B’). The learned Judge of the Labour
Court, Surendranagar was pleased to order payment of Rs.50,000/- as
lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Besides the learned
Judge of the Labour Court ordered that benefits payable to the
petitioner-workman under the law be paid by the establishment within
30 days from the date of publication of the award.
3. This
award was the subject matter of Special Civil Application No.12769 of
2003, wherein this Court (Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.S. Jhaveri)
while partly allowing the petition vide order dated 11.08.2010
directed that,
“6. .. .. The
impugned judgment and award is quashed and set aside only
qua awarding of an amount of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement is
concerned and the same is
upheld qua granting of other subsequent and consequential benefits is
concerned. Since the respondent has already retired, the
petitioner is directed to grant him the pensionary benefits
within a period of three months from today. Rule is made absolute to
the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.” (emphasis
supplied)
It is the case
of the petitioner that the petitioner gave a legal notice through
learned advocate on 17th January 2011, wherein also the petitioner
chose not to spell out the details of the benefits available to
him under the law. The respondent-Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation (GSRTC) replied to the petitioner-workman by
communication dated 14/ 16.03.2011 intimating the petitioner that the
Hon’ble High Court has directed the Corporation to pay pensionary
benefits by order in Special Civil Application No.12769 of 2003, but
on scrutiny of record it is found that you are not a member of the
pension scheme and no contribution was ever deducted from your pay
towards pension and therefore, you are not entitled to pensionary
benefits. (emphasis supplied)
It
is this communication which is challenged in the present petition.
The matter came up for consideration of the same learned Judge, who
passed an order on 4th
August 2011, The order reads as under:
“Heard
learned counsel for the petitioner. The directions issued by this
Court in the judgment and order passed in S.C.A. No.12769/2003 dated
11.08.2010 regarding pensionary
benefits are always subject to the prevailing Rules.
With the said clarification, the matter is ordered to be placed
before the appropriate Court taking up such matters for further
orders.” (emphasis supplied)
4. After the
matter is argued by the learned advocate for the petitioner the Court
inquired as to what benefits are payable to the petitioner-workman
under the relevant rules. The learned advocate for the petitioner
replies that he will need time to inquire as to what benefits are
available to the petitioner-workman.
The Court
refused to grant time to the learned advocate for the petitioner for
the simple reason that the petitioner ought to have obtained a
specific order that besides pensionary benefits what other
consequential benefits/ incidental benefits are available to the
petitioner-workman at the time of getting the matter heard and
disposed of (Special Civil Application No.12769 of 2003).
The learned
Judge of the Labour Court ordered that the petitioner be paid a lump
sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and
benefits available to him under law be also paid to the
petitioner-workman. This Court is of the opinion that in fact the
learned advocate appearing for the workman ought to have got the
benefits spelt out at that stage, but that was not done. This Court
partly allowed the petition-SCA No.12769 of 2003. The learned
advocate for the petitioner-workman ought to have got those benefits
spelt out in that order, but only with a view to see that in absence
of any specific benefits being mentioned the petitioner may be able
to snatch some benefits from the Corporation, this exercise was not
undertaken.
5. Not only
that even when the present petition is filed it is not mentioned
anywhere as to what benefits the petitioner is entitled to, under
which provisions of rules/ law. In light of that, this Court is of
the opinion that this petition is not only misconceived but also
misleading and ill-designed. Hence the petition is dismissed with
cost of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand and five hundred only).
Deposit of this amount is made condition precedent for filing any
further proceeding in the matter.
(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)
karim
Top