Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 297
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
K.M. Thaker, J.
Chemical Mazdoor Panchayat - Appellant
Vs.
Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Application (for Direction) No.5068 of 2015 in Special Civil Application No.14224 of 2008
Decided On : 15.02.2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sangeeta N. Pahwa, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Lilu K. Bhaya, Advocate.
The central legal principle established in the judgment is the obligation of the electricity company to maintain the status-quo and continue engaging the workmen as per the award and court orders, despite the expiration of the contract and ongoing tendering process.
Headnote:
Electricity Company - Labor Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(4) - Section 33(2)(b) - Section 33A - The judgment discusses the application of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifically focusing on the award dated 1.1.2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, and the subsequent orders dated 2.12.2008 and 6.5.2010. The court emphasizes the obligation of the electricity company to maintain the status-quo and continue engaging the concerned 18 workmen in accordance with the award and court orders, despite the expiration of the contract and the ongoing tendering process. The judgment highlights the company's duty to pay wages and maintain the service conditions of the workmen as per the award and court orders, and the court's direction to the company to comply with the same.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant union sought the court's intervention due to the electricity company's breach of the order dated 2.12.2008, which directed the company to maintain the status-quo and continue engaging the concerned 18 workmen as per the award dated 1.1.2008. The company had stopped engaging the workmen since September 2014, citing the end of the contract and ongoing tendering process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the electricity company's actions to be in violation of the order dated 2.12.2008 and emphasized the company's obligation to continue engaging the workmen and paying their wages in accordance with the award and court orders. The court also noted the unjust and arbitrary nature of the company's defense and actions, highlighting the workmen's right to receive wages and the company's duty to comply with the court's orders.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the electricity company's refusal to engage the concerned 18 workmen and pay their wages, despite the court's order to maintain the status-quo and continue the engagement as per the award and previous court orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the obligation imposed on the electricity company to maintain the status-quo and continue engaging the workmen as per the award and court orders, regardless of the expiration of the contract and ongoing tendering process. The court emphasized the workmen's right to receive wages and the company's duty to comply with the court's orders.
Final Decision: The court directed the electricity company to start paying the concerned workmen's wages from 16.2.2016 in a manner similar to before 2.12.2008, and to engage the workmen until the fresh contract is finalized. The company was instructed to ensure compliance with the order dated 2.12.2008 and to engage the workmen without leaving them without work or wages on any ground.
K.M. Thaker, J.
Heard Mrs. Sangeeta N. Pahwa, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. K.M. Patel, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned advocate for the opponent electricity company.
1. Having regard to the facts of the case, Rule. Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned advocate has waived service of Notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent electricity company.
1.1 At the request of learned advocate for the applicant and with consent of learned advocate for the opponent, the application is taken up for hearing and final decision today.
2. The applicant union is the original respondent No. 12 in Special Civil Application No. 14224 of 2008 and present opponent electricity company is the original petitioner in the said Special Civil Application No. 14224 of 2008.
3. In the said Special Civil Application No. 14224 of 2008 present opponent has challenged the award dated 1.1.2008 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal at Rajkot in Reference (IT) No. 29 of 1999 whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal directed the petitioner electricity company to regularize the services of contract workers by conferring status of permanent employees of the electricity company and to pay all consequential benefits at par with the benefits paid to regular and permanent employees of the electricity company w.e.f. 1.1.1999.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the said award and directions the electricity company filed above mentioned Special Civil Application No. 14224 of 2008.
5. In the said petition being Special Civil Application No.14224 of 2008 the Court passed below quoted order on 2.12.2008:--
"Notice pending admission returnable on 22/12/2008. In the meantime and till the returnable date, status-quo as on today be maintained by both the sides."
6. Thus, vide said order dated 2.12.2008 the Court directed petitioner electricity company to maintain status-quo prevailing on 2.12.2008.
7. At this stage it is necessary and appropriate to recall that the award in question came to be passed on 1.1.2008 and it was to come in operation 60 days after the date of publication. The award, therefore would have come in operation and was required to be complied w.e.f. 1.3.2008 whereas the order granting interim relief was passed on 2.12.2008. Thus, when the order dated 2.12.2008 granting ad-interim relief was passed, the award was already in operation.
8. It is also relevant to note that the Court, vide order dated 2.12.2008, did not stay the implementation and operation of the award dated 1.1.2008 but directed that the status-quo as on 2.12.2008 shall be maintained by both the sides. Meaning thereby as on the date when interim relief was granted i.e. as on 2.12.2008 the position which would be in operation in accordance with law would be the position which would have come in existence on implementation of award inasmuch as according to the provisions under I.D. Act the award had already come in operation w.e.f. 1.3.2008. That position was required to be maintained in light of the condition to maintain status-quo.
9. However, even if it was presumed that the petitioner electricity company had not acted upon and implemented the direction passed by the learned tribunal vide order dated 1.1.2008 until order dated 2.12.2008 came to be passed then also, the fact remained that the concerned 18 workmen were working with electricity company as the employees of the contractor of the petitioner electricity company and in their favour the direction vide impugned award dated 1.1.2008 was passed and consequently in view of the order dated 2.12.2008 the status-quo with regard to the said service condition was to be complied by the petitioner electricity company.
10. Subsequently application came to be admitted in May 2010 and the Court, at that time passed below quoted order on 6.5.2010:
"1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya on behalf of petitioner; learned advocate Mr. Mukesh Patel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 7 and learned advocate Mrs. Sangeeta N. Pahwa on behalf o
