IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - PETITIONER
Versus
PRABHATSINH KALYANSINH SOLANKI & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1312 of 2017 TO SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1317 of 2017
Decided On : 04-08-2017
Result: Petition allowed.
1. Challenge in this group of petitions is made by the employer - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, to different, but identical awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Vadodara - all dated 30.01.2016, in Reference Nos.439, 445, 449, 450, 451 and 452 of 2013. By the impugned awards, the Tribunal has accepted the claim of the respective workman that they were entitled to be taken on the regular pay-scale, years before the employer did it. While allowing the said References, the Tribunal had granted benefit from a particular date, however on the applications being filed by the concerned workmen, necessary change is made by the Tribunal in the effective date of grant of benefit to the concerned workmen. The said orders are dated 16.08.2016. The effective date of granting benefit, in each case is of the year 2001. The effect of each award is that, the Corporation is required to pay lakhs of rupees to the concerned workmen.
2. Mr. Hardik Rawal, learned advocate for the petitioner Corporation has submitted that, the petitioner had already taken the respondent workmen on regular pay-scale, from the date they were entitled to – as per the policy of the Corporation, and the respondents were not entitled to the said benefit from an earlier date. It is submitted that the issue, as to how the said policy of the Corporation would read and what conditions need to be fulfilled to claim such benefit, was considered by this Court in a group of petition and the same is answered in the judgment of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation versus Maheshbhai Navalshankar Pandya and others recorded on Special Civil Application No. 11717 of 2014 and cognate matters dated 18.09.2014. It is submitted that as per the said judgment the claim of the respondents was untenable and could not be accepted by the Tribunal. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1185 of 2014 dated 04.07.2017, whereby the said judgment (in Special Civil Application No.11717 of 2014 dated 18.09.2014) is confirmed. It is contended that, in view of the said decisions, the impugned awards are unsustainable and the same need to be quashed and set aside. It is additionally submitted that, there was inordinate delay on the part of the workmen in approaching the Tribunal and on that count also, relief could not have been granted by the Tribunal. It is submitted that, on both these counts, the impugned awards need to be quashed and set aside.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Songara, learned advocate for Mr. G.K. Rathod, learned advocate for the respondent workmen has submitted that, the Tribunal has passed the awards, on the basis of the material on record and no interference be made by this Court. It is submitted that, whatever is submitted by the petitioner Corporation before this Court, is being told for the first time and no contest was put before the Tribunal and therefore, the petitioner need not be heard. It is further submitted that even after the impugned awards are passed, the petitioner authorities are acting arbitrarily. Serious grievance is made that, on and around the period when the impugned awards were passed, many awards (14 awards) were passed by the Tribunal in almost identical facts and on identical line, but out of those 14 cases, in 8 matters, applications are filed by the Corporation under Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 for re-opening those References, but in these 06 matters, petitions are filed before this Court. It is submitted that, if it is the case of the petitioner Corporation that the awards are unsustainable, similar action should have been taken qua all the workmen. Learned advocate for the respondent, however is not in a position to dispute that there was delay of more than a decade on the part of the concerned workmen in approaching the Tribunal and further that even on merits, the issue is concluded in favour of the Corporat
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.