Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7822/2004 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7822 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 ?
=========================================================
VIRAJI
CHELAJI VAGHELA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DIVISIONAL
CONTROLLER G S R T C - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
MUKESH RATHOD for MR GK RATHOD for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR HS
MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 18/08/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the impugned award dated 09.03.2001, passed by the Industrial
Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference [IT] No. 236/1992, whereby the said
reference was rejected.
2. The
short facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the
post of Art.B Tyre Fitter w.e.f. 05.08.1977. Thereafter he was
promoted to the post of Art-A Fitter category w.e.f. 04.05.1980. The
petitioner raised a grievance that the junior working on the said
post is getting higher pay than him and, therefore, the respondent
should also fix pay scale, given to the junior working on the said
post. As no action was taken by the respondent for fixation of his
pay, the petitioner raised a dispute which was ultimately referred to
the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication being Reference [IT] No.
236/1992. Before the Industrial Tribunal both the parties adduced
evidence and on the basis of the material produced before it, the
Industrial Tribunal rejected the said reference. Hence, this
petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. It appears that petitioner and one Mr. Sharma, both are
working in different cadres inasmuch as the petitioner is
working on the post of Art-A Tyre Fitter, whereas Mr. Sharma is
working on the post of Art-A Mechanic Driver and therefore, their pay
scales are different. The said fact is established from the
seniority list produced at Exhibit-31/1. The Industrial Tribunal has
recorded the finding that for both the cadres different pay scales
are fixed.
4. Looking
to the facts of the case and in view of the fact that as per GSO
different pay scales are fixed for different cadre, the view taken by
the Industrial Tribunal is just and proper.
I am in complete agreement with
the reasonings given and findings
arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal and hence, do not find any
reason to interfere with the same.
5. In
the result, the petitioner is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim
relief, if any, stands vacated.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top