Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6975/2004 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6975 of 2004
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UMEDBEN
WD/O BHAMARSINH THAKORE - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
KP RAVAL AGP for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3.
RULE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR UM SHASTRI for Respondent(s) : 1, 1.2.1,
1.2.2,1.2.3
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 16/08/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner-State has prayed to quash and
set aside the order passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Recovery
Application No.14/2003 dated 21.01.2004, whereby, the said
application was allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay
an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- to the respondent, being the amount of
Pension from 1993, within a period of thirty days from the date of
the said order, failing which the petitioner was directed to pay
interest @ 9% p.a. on the said amount until its realization.
2. The
facts in brief are that the respondent herein was working as a
Watchman with the petitioner-State at its Office situated in Shehra
Taluka of Panchmahals District. However, subsequently, the entire
Office was shifted to Godhra Taluka. The respondent was not allotted
any work at the new place. Being aggrieved by the same, he raised a
dispute, which, ultimately, culminated into a reference being
Reference (LCG) No.41/1992. The said Reference was decided in favour
of the respondent by way of award dated 24.12.2001. In pursuance of
the said award, the respondent went to the Office of the petitioner
for the purpose of resuming his duties. However, he was not permitted
to join the duties.
3. Being
aggrieved by the said action of the petitioner, the respondent filed
S.C.A. No.12346/2002 before this Court. The petitioner had also filed
S.C.A. No.7749/2002 challenging the said award. Both the petitions
came to be disposed of by this Court, vide judgment and order dated
28.01.2003, the petitioner-State was directed to implement the award
within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said judgment and
order.
4. Thereafter,
the respondent filed Recovery Application No.14/2003 u/s. 33(C)(2) of
the I.D. Act before the Labour Court, which came to be allowed vide
impugned order dated 21.01.2004. Hence, this petition.
5. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. In the earlier litigation filed before this Court, the
award dated 24.12.2001 passed by the Labour Court was confirmed.
Thus, on the basis of the benefit of continuity of service granted by
the Labour Court and confirmed by this Court in its common judgment
and order dated 28.01.2003 passed in S.C.A. Nos.7749/2002 &
12346/2002, the Court below calculated the amount of Pension that
shall be payable to the respondent. Having gone through the impugned
order, I do not find that the Court below has committed any
illegality or impropriety while passing the said order. The Court
below has also taken into consideration the relevant Rules governing
the issue on hand. Looking to the facts of the case and the evidence
on record, I am of the opinion that the Court below was completely
justified in passing the impugned order. I am in complete agreement
with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Court
below and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same.
6. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
The petitioner shall make payment of the amount, as referred to in
the Recovery Application, within a period of Five Months from today.
At this stage, it is reported by learned counsel Mr. U.M. Shastri
that the respondent-original workman has died on 11.06.2005. In that
view of the matter, the family of the respondent-original workman
shall be entitled for Family Pension, as may be admissible under the
relevant Rules. Such amount shall be released within a period of
three months thereafter. With the above directions, the petition
stands disposed of. No costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top