Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 1189
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
K.M. Thaker, J.
Mansukhbhai Hirabhai Chauhan and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Jetpur Nagar Palika and Ors. - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 11378 to 11381 & 8529 of 2014
Decided On : 07-07-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Anand B. Gogia, B.B. Gogia, Kajal L. Kalwani
For the Respondents: Bhavesh P. Trivedi, R.R. Trivedi
The legality and propriety of reference orders must be considered in light of the termination of the workmen's appointments before the reference orders were passed.
Headnote:
Appointment Termination - Industrial Tribunal Award Challenge - [Industrial Tribunal Act, Section 10] - The court considered the challenge against a common award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 54 of 1998, 55 of 1998, 62 of 1998 and 185 of 2006. The award directed the Nagarpalika to grant permanency and salary benefits to the workmen. The court found that the appointments of the workmen were terminated before the reference orders were passed, rendering the reference defective. The court set aside the award and remanded the cases for fresh hearing to address the legality and propriety of the reference orders.
Fact of the Case:
The workmen challenged a common award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, which directed the Nagarpalika to grant permanency and salary benefits. The workmen's appointments were terminated before the reference orders were passed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reference orders were defective as the appointments of the workmen were terminated before the reference orders were passed. The court set aside the award and remanded the cases for fresh hearing.
Issues: The main issue was the legality and propriety of the reference orders in light of the termination of the workmen's appointments before the reference orders were passed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reference orders were unsustainable as the services of the workmen had been terminated before the reference orders were passed, rendering the reference defective.
Final Decision: The court set aside the award and remanded the cases for fresh hearing to address the legality and propriety of the reference orders.
K.M. Thaker, J.
1. Out of captioned five petitions, four petitions i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 11378 of 2014 to 11381 of 2014, were listed on 4.7.2016 in the Cause List for Final Hearing. At the time of hearing of the said four petitions, learned counsel for the Nagarpalika informed the Court that the Nagarpalika has also filed petition against the award passed by the learned Labour Court and the petition filed by the Nagarpalika would be listed for Final Hearing on 19.7.2016. On said ground, adjournment in respect of four petitions were requested for, however, the Court considered it appropriate to call for the record of Special Civil Application No. 8529 of 2014 and to hear the said petition alongwith other four petitions in view of the fact that the four petitions were already listed for Final hearing and the fifth petition also arose from the same award which was subject matter of challenge in the four petitions. Therefore, with consent of learned counsel for the Nagarpalika and with consent of learned advocates for the workmen, the office was directed, vide order dated 4.7.2016 to list the papers of Special Civil Application No. 8529 of 2014 before the Court alongwith the other four petitions.
2. In view of the said order, the four petitions are listed for Final Hearing today, however, today, Special Civil Application No. 8529 of 2014 is not listed despite the order dated 4.7.2016. Under the circumstances, with consent of learned counsel for the Nagarpalika and learned advocates for the workmen, the file of Special Civil Application No. 8529 of 2014 is called for and the office is directed to reflect Special Civil Application No. 8529 of 2014 in today's cause list for Final Hearing.
3. Heard Mr. Gogia, Mr. Kalvani, Mr. Suchak, Mr. Ramani, learned advocates for the workmen, and Mr. Trivedi and Mr. Dave, learned advocates for the Nagarpalika.
4. So far as the four petitions filed by the workmen i.e. Special Civil Application No. 11378 of 2014 to 11381 of 2014 are concerned, the said petitions have been taken out against the common award dated 1.1.2014 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 54 of 1998, 55 of 1998, 62 of 1998 and 185 of 2006 whereby the learned Tribunal directed the Nagarpalika to grant status of permanency (w.e.f. 1.1.2014) to the workmen concerned in the said four reference cases and also directed the Nagarpalika to pay salary to the said persons at par with regular and permanent employees. The concerned workmen are aggrieved by the award and direction so far as it denies the benefit for the past period (i.e. for the period from the date of demand until 15.2.2014).
5. So far as the Nagarpalika is concerned, in its petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8529 of 2014, the Nagarpalika has also challenged the same common award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 54 of 1998, 55 of 1998, 62 of 1998 and 185 of 2006 with aforesaid directions. The Nagarpalika feels aggrieved by the award and claims that the directions are unwarranted and unjustified. The concerned workmen are aggrieved by the award and direction so far as it denies the benefit for the past period, i.e. for the period from the date of demand until 15.2.2014.
6. In light of the details which emerged during the hearing of the petitions it has become clear that this five petitions can be disposed of on limited ground instead of entering into detailed discussion about rival contentions against the impugned direction.
7. To put in nutshell, as a result of hearing of the petition it has emerged that the order of reference passed by appropriate government was defective and the learned tribunal decided the reference cases without taking into account and without resolving the issue related to the defect in the award.
8. Following discussion and the details mentioned below bring out the error in the order of reference and proceedings before learned Tribunal.
9. So far as the facts and details r
