Back
2003 Supreme(Guj) 191
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :H.K.RATHOD
STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant
Versus
MANIBEN VIRAJI - Respondent
S.C.A. 3875 of 2003
Decided On : 04/09/2003
Headnote:
Constitution of India -Article 227 -Petitioners in this group of petitions. Labour Court has passed two common award one in Reference (LCS) No. 47 of 1999 to 51 of 1999, 15 of 1999 to 84 of 1999, 146 of 1999 to 151 of 1999, 186 of 1999 to 361 of 1999. Labour Court, has also passed second common award of the same date in Reference No. 205 of 1995 to 622 of 1995. In both the common awards,labour court, has granted the same and similar benefits as well as issued some similar directions in favour of the respondent workmen. The labour court, Surat has directed the second party respondent workmen to submit detailed residential address, ration card and the election card or any other Government documents along with the certificate of birth date to the Executive Engineer (4) Division-1. labour Court, has also directed the first party State to prepare the seniority list of the part of the workmen covered by these two common awards who have not yet crossed the upper age limit and there is no bar of age as per their birth date, for reinstating them a fresh in service on their original post. labour court has also directed the first party establishment to give work to the workmen covered by these two common awards (whose name and number have been mentioned in the Schedule-A forming part and parcel of the said common awards) as per the said seniority list on the posts which have been sanctioned but are vacant at present wherein the Government has granted approval for filling up such posts. Under the said two common awards, it has also been clarified by the labour court that the workmen covered by the said two common awards have not to be given any benefit of back wages for the intervening period or continuity of service.labour court has also directed to complete the procedure within 120 days from the date of publication of the award by publishing such seniority list of the workmen covered by these two common awards and to provide them work in accordance with the aforesaid directions. The schedule A to the said common awards has been ordered to be treated as a part and parcel of the awards –Held In view of the above observations made by the apex court, I am of the view that unless and until it is successfully established that the labour court has committed any procedural irregularity in passing the award or that the findings recorded by the labour court are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record or that such findings are perverse, this court cannot disturb the same in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The labour court was right in issuing the directions to the petitioner for re-engaging the respondents after appreciating the evidence on record. There is no financial burden upon the petitioner if the awards in question are implemented by the irrigation department of the petitioner State and the irrigation department of the petitioner is required often to undertake the new project or new activities and on such occasion, the petitioner has to offer the work to the present respondents in order of their seniority after preparing their seniority list as directed by the labour court. It is really a justice done by the labour court in favour of the respondents workmen who are out of job since more than 20 years who are illiterate and scheduled tribe persons and, therefore, according to my opinion, the labour court has not committed any error in passing the impugned awards. Entire awards made by the labour court are based on the appreciation of the evidence on record, both documentary and oral and, therefore, such findings of fact recorded by the labour court after appreciating the evidence on record cannot be reappreciated by this court in these petitions. For the reasons recorded above, there is no substance in this group of petitions and the same are required to be dismissed. Hence all these petitions are dismissed –Petition is Dismissed.
( 1 ) THESE petitions have been filed by the petitioner State of Gujarat challenging two common awards passed by the Labour Court, Surat under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
( 2 ) HEARD Mr. A. D. Oza for the petitioners in this group of petitions. The Labour Court, Surat has passed two common award dated 13th June, 2002 one in Reference (LCS) No. 47 of 1999 to 51 of 1999, 15 of 1999 to 84 of 1999, 146 of 1999 to 151 of 1999, 186 of 1999 to 361 of 1999. The Labour Court, Surat has also passed second common award of the same date in Reference No. 205 of 1995 to 622 of 1995. In both the common awards, the labour court, Surat has granted the same and similar benefits as well as issued some similar directions in favour of the respondent workmen. The labour court, Surat has directed the second party respondent workmen to submit detailed residential address, ration card and the election card or any other Government documents along with the certificate of birth date to the Executive Engineer (4) Division-1 at Ukai, Taluka : Songadh, District Surat. The labour Court, Surat has also directed the first party State to prepare the seniority list of the part of the workmen covered by these two common awards who have not yet crossed the upper age limit and there is no bar of age as per their birth date, for reinstating them a fresh in service on their original post. The labour court, Surat has also directed the first party establishment to give work to the workmen covered by these two common awards (whose name and number have been mentioned in the Schedule-A forming part and parcel of the said common awards) as per the said seniority list on the posts which have been sanctioned but are vacant at present wherein the Government has granted approval for filling up such posts. Under the said two common awards, it has also been clarified by the labour court that the workmen covered by the said two common awards have not to be given any benefit of back wages for the intervening period or continuity of service. The labour court has also directed to complete the procedure within 120 days from the date of publication of the award by publishing such seniority list of the workmen covered by these two common awards and to provide them work in accordance with the aforesaid directions. The schedule A to the said common awards has been ordered to be treated as a part and parcel of the awards.
( 3 ) CONSIDERING these two common awards, according to the petitioner, it comes to total 525 respondent workmen. In respect of reference No. 205 of 1995, there are total 244 male workmen and 110 female workmen, total of which would come to 354 workmen. In respect of reference No. 47 of 1995, there are 99 male workmen and 72 female workmen, total of which would come to 171 and the total of these two references would, thus, come to 525 [354 workmen plus 171 workmen] whose list has been annexed by the labour court along with the said two common award as Schedule-A and which has been treated to be the part and parcel of the said two common awards. Before dealing with the matters on merits, it would be just and proper to refer to the observations made by the apex court in case of M. S. Garewal versus Deep Chand Sood and others reported in 2001 (8) SCC page 151. In para 27 and 28 of the said decision, the apex court has observed as under:"27. THE decision of this Court in D. K. Basu versus State of W. B. comes next. This decision has opened up a new vista in the jurisprudence of the country. The old doctrine of only relegating the aggrieved to the remedies available in civil law limits stands extended since Anand,j. (as His Lordship then was) in no uncertain terms observed; (SCC p. 439 para 45) the Courts have the obligations to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the Courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. A Court of law cannot close its consciousness and aliveness to stark realities
