CA/6930/2008 5/ 5 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6930 of 2008 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9418 of 2003 ========================================= NATVARGIRI M MEGHNATHI - Petitioner(s) Versus SAURASHTRA CHEMICALS LIMITED - Respondent(s) ========================================= Appearance : MR HASIT H JOSHI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR NIRAV A JOSHI FOR NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 18/07/2008 ORAL ORDER
1. This
application has been preferred by the applicant with below mentioned
prayers :
(A) Your
Lordships be pleased to direct the petitioner to give all the
retirement benefits like basic salary, bonus, full salary of 19
months from 1.1.03 to 31.7.04 and difference of full salary and last
drawn salary from 31.7.2004 till the date of retirement of the
applicant, to the applicant workman by giving continuity of service
as if the has not been dismissed/removed by the management from
service and at par with other similarly situated employees as
referred to above in the interest of justice.
(B) Call
for papers of both the petitioner arising from impugned award namely
SCA No.9418 of 2003, filed by Management as well as SCA No.16171 of
2003 and take up the said main matters for final disposal.
(C) Grant
such other and further reliefs deemed just and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case.
2. So
as to appreciate the relief prayed for by the applicant, it is
necessary to take into account the statement of factual background.
3. From
perusal of the record of Special Civil Application No.9418 of 2003
and Special Civil Application No.1617 of 2003 it appears that the
said petitions are cross-petitions and very same award is challegned
by the parties of this application. It also appears that the
applicant herein was terminated by the Company. Aggrieved by the said
termination, the applicant herein had raised an industrial dispute,
wherein the learned Labour Court passed an award on 1.1.2003
directing the Company to reinstate the respondent without backwages.
As aforesaid, the said award has been challenged by applicant –
workman as well as opponent – Company and the aforesaid two petitions
are preferred, which are admitted and pending for hearing.
4. During
the pendency of the said petition, the Company had agreed to
reinstate the applicant without prejudice to its rights and
contentions and accordingly with effect from 31.7.2004, the applicant
was reinstated and from then onwards he continued in employment until
he reached the age of superannuation on 11.12.2007 and consequently
he was superannuated on 31.12.2007
5. During
the pendency of the said petition, the applicant has preferred
present application with aforesaid relief. So far as first part of
relief prayed for in para 6(A) is concerned, the applicant has prayed
for the payment of salary for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.7.2004
(i.e. the date on which he came to be reinstated as aforesaid).
Against the said prayer of the applicant, it is submitted on behalf
of the opponent that the Company has challenged the direction of
reinstatement and one of the grounds in support of the challenge is
that the applicant had admitted legality and propriety of inquiry as
well as finding of the Inquiry Officer and had challenged the
decision of the management of terminating the applicant and that
therefore, it was not proper and justified for the learned Labour
Court to quash the quantum of punishment and interfere with the
decision of the penalty. It is further submitted that if the Company
succeeds in his petition, then the direction for reinstatement would
be set aside and the Company would not be under any obligation to
make payment to the applicant with effect from 1.1.2003 to 31.7.2004.
This Court is at this stage, inclined to accept the said submission
and it appears that the said relief does not deserve to be granted at
this stage. Mr. Nirav Joshi, learned advocate for Nanavati Associates
for Company further submitted that earlier also the applicant had
made request for salary from the period 1.1.2003 to 31.7.2004,
however, this Court by an order dated 13.10.2004 had directed that
such a request can be considered at the time of final hearing of the
petition. It is also submitted that it was without prejudice to the
contentions that the Company had agreed to reinstate the applicant
and accordingly, he was reinstated with effect from 31.7.2004 and the
Company has made the payment of regular salary to the applicant.
However, Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the applicant disputed the
said submission and submitted that during the period of 31.7.2004 to
31.12.2007, the salary was not paid to the applicant as per his
entitlement. The said grievance of the applicant is beyond the scope
of the petition inasmuch as the subject matter of the petition is an
award dated 1.1.2003 passed by the learned Labour Court and that
therefore, the events which might have taken place subsequent to the
above referred award will be outside the scope of petition.
Notwithstanding the said aspect, Mr. Nirav Joshi, learned advocate
for Nanavati Associates for the Company stated that if there has been
any short payment as compared to his entitlement, then company would
make payment of the differential amount to the applicant on or
before 31.7.2008. It is clarified that if the grievance of the
applicant still survives, then it would be open for him to take
appropriate steps in accordance with law in appropriate forum.
6. In
view of the earliar direction by the Court and in view of the
aforesaid observations and clarification nothing further is required
to done, so far as this Civil Application is concerned. Hence, the
same is dismissed.
(K.M.THAKER,
J.)
ynvyas