Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 1141
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
K.M. Thaker, J.
Savarkundla Nagar Palika – Appellant
Vs.
Municipal Employees Association and Ors. – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 523 of 2001
Decided On : 17-06-2016
For the Appellant :Deepak P. Sanchela and Mahesh Bhavsar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Reena Kamani and P.H. Pathak, Advocates.
The Court emphasized the validity of settlements and the acceptance of payments in compliance with the settlement, highlighting the importance of considering settlements and resolutions in industrial dispute cases.
Headnote:
Regularization - Industrial Dispute - Award dated 7.9.1999 - Regularization of service, permanency, and arrears - Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 - Section 2(s), Section 10(1) - Settlement reached between parties - Acceptance of back wages in installments - Validity of subsequent affidavits - Court's consideration of settlement and resolutions
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner Nagarpalika challenged an award directing the regularization of service, grant of permanency, and payment of arrears to certain claimants. The petitioner and the respondent union reached a settlement, and the petitioner passed resolutions to grant regularization and pay 20% back wages in installments. The respondent association contested the settlement, alleging it was obtained by force.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the concerned claimants accepted the payments in compliance with the settlement, despite subsequent objections raised by the union. The Court rejected the objections and considered the settlement and resolutions. It also examined the award and found that the directions for regularization and permanency were partly set aside and modified in terms of the settlement and resolutions.
Issues: Validity of settlement and subsequent objections, acceptance of back wages, consideration of settlement and resolutions, and modification of award
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the subsequent objections raised by the union lacked credibility, considering the acceptance of payments by the concerned claimants. The Court also refrained from setting aside the award, instead modifying it in line with the settlement and resolutions.
Final Decision: The award was partly set aside and modified in terms of the settlement and resolutions, and the petition was partly allowed.
K.M. Thaker, J.
1. Heard Mr. Bhavsar, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Ms. Kamani, learned advocate, for Mr. Pathak, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1, contesting party.
2. In present petition, the petitioner Nagarpalika has challenged award dated 7.9.1999 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) No. 240 of 1991 whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the petitioner to regularize the service of the concerned claimants by considering the concerned claimants as daily wagers for period of first five years from the date they joined the service and by considering the concerned claimants as temporary workmen for subsequent five years and thereafter, to treat the concerned claimants as permanent workmen with consequential benefits and to pay arrears from the said date within 30 days. Aggrieved by such direction, the petitioner filed present petition.
3. At the outset, Mr. Bhavsar, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that during pendency of the petition, the petitioner Nagarpalika and the respondent union had entered into negotiations and deliberations for full and final settlement of the dispute. He further submitted that, as a result of joint deliberations and negotiations, an amicable settlement came to be arrived at. He submitted that the concerned claimants had offered that if benefit of regularization and permanency as per the directions passed by the learned Tribunal is granted, then, the workmen/union are ready and willing to accept 20% of back wages and to forego balance 80% of back wages awarded by virtue of the award impugned in the petition. He submitted that in view of the said request and offer by the concerned claimants, the petitioner Nagarpalika deliberated the issue during the meeting of the Executive Committee and after due deliberations, it was decided to accept the said suggestion and offer so as to put an end to the dispute and the litigation. He also submitted that accordingly, the petitioner Nagarpalika passed resolution to grant benefit of regularization in phased manner as directed by the learned Tribunal and to pay 20% back wages in installments (depending on the financial condition of the Nagarpalika) from the date of permanency in the employment. Mr. Bhavsar and Mr. Sanchela, learned advocates, while relying on documents dated 30.11.2015, 31.12.2015 and 1.2.2016, further submitted that the petitioner has paid first, second and third installments respectively of the amount agreed to be paid to the concerned workmen in installments (i.e. 20% of back wages) and the concerned workmen have accepted the said amount. To support the said submission, he placed on record photocopy of the statement reflecting signed receipts acknowledging the payment to the concerned workmen.
4. Mr. Jay Solanki, learned advocate for Mr. Y.M. Thakkar, learned advocate, submitted that Mr. Thakkar has no instructions from and on behalf of respondent No. 2.
5. Ms. Kamani, learned advocate for Mr. Pathak, learned advocate for respondent No. 1 association, submitted that the said settlement was obtained by the nagarpalika by force and the said settlement is not acceptable to the respondent union. She submitted that in the proceeding related to Civil Application No. 6052 of 2002 (which was filed in Special Civil Application No. 523 of 2001), an affidavit dated 17.3.2013 to the said effect was made and submitted on record, wherein it was stated, inter-alia, that:
"1. That we are the workmen who are directed to be regularized by the Hon. Industrial Tribunal. Against the said award the Nagarpalika has filed Spl.CA/523/2001. That this Hon. Court (Coram: Mr. Justice Ravi R. Tripathi) passed an order on 25.2.2003 directing the Chief Secretary, State of Gujarat to submit a report for the actions against the respondent Nagarpalika.
2. That the President of the Nagarpalika has started pressurizing the workmen to withdraw the civil application and we were called on 26.2.2003 at about 9.00
