SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Guj) 816

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Vipul M. Pancholi, J.
Tata Chemicals Limited - Petitioners
Versus
Tata Chemicals Mazdoor Sangh and others – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 10497 of 2015
Decided on : 7-9-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Varun K. Patel, Advocate.
For the Respondents:T.R. Mishra, Advocate.

Important Point – Relief prayed for in reference cannot be granted by way of interim relief.

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10 – Power of Tribunal to grant interim relief – Tribunal has granted interim relief in nature of preventive injunction in favour of concerned workman which is impermissible in eye of law – By way of such direction Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction – Tribunal, by way of interim relief, has practically granted relief prayed for in reference – Impugned award passed by Tribunal quashed.

       Result – Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

Rule. Learned advocate Mr. T.R. Mishra waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1 - Union.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing looking to the controversy involved in this petition.

3. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 22nd April 2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jamnagar below application for interim relief Exh.8 filed by the respondent No.1 - Union in Reference (IT) No.54 of 2013 be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Varun K. Patel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the concerned workman was appointed as Khalasi in Civil Engineering Works Department of the petitioner on 22.02.1978. The said workman in his application form dated 22.02.1978 has categorically stated his date of birth as 01.06.1953. Along with the said application he had produced the School Leaving Certificate showing his date of birth as 01.06.1953 at the time of his appointment. The said workman was also examined by the Industrial Physician at the time of his joining with the petitioner. The medical report dated 20.02.1978 also confirms the age of 25 years of the concerned workman at the time of examination. It is contended that on 11.11.2012 petitioner informed the concerned workman about his superannuation on reaching the age of 60 years on 1st June 2013. Petitioner also rejected the application dated 16.11.2012 given by the said workman for correction of his birth date from 01.06.1953 to 20.02.1957.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Patel thereafter contended that a reference was made at the instance of the concerned workman to the Industrial Tribunal, Jamnagar for an industrial dispute relating to correction in the date of birth of the said workman from 01.06.1953 to 20.02.1957. The said reference is registered as Reference (IT) No. 54 of 2013. In the said reference the workman filed statement of claim before the concerned Tribunal. Along with the same he also filed an application for interim relief at Exh.8. The petitioner filed reply to the said application for interim relief. Learned advocate submitted that initially the order of status-quo was granted by the Tribunal. Thereafter, it was extended from time to time and ultimately by the impugned order dated 22.04.2015 the Tribunal allowed the application for interim relief, whereby the petitioner was directed to maintain status-quo till 20th February 2017 and petitioner was also directed to pay 50% of the wages every month to the concerned workman. The Tribunal also observed that both the parties should cooperate for disposal of the case within a period of six months. It is this order which is under challenge before this Court.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Patel for the petitioner would contend that the Tribunal has no power to grant interim relief and therefore the impugned order be quashed and set aside. He would further submit that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the said application on the ground that the workman has filed a reference at the fag end of his retirement. The reference is filed in the year 2013 i.e. at the fag end of his retirement. The workman has also filed an application for interim relief and since 2013 the Tribunal granted status-quo which was extended from time to time, as a result of the said order, the workman is working with the petitioner though he has attained the age of superannuation as per the School Leaving Certificate produced by him at the time of joining the services. Learned advocate further contended that because of the interim relief granted by the learned Tribunal, the reference of the workman is practically allowed. The Tribunal has no power or authority to grant interim relief by which the reference is allowed. Thus, it is contended that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction and committed serious error of law.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Patel t









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top