SCA/207/1995 of GUJARAT STATE DEVELOPMENT FOREST CORP Vs HASMUKHBHAI KESHAVJI PARMAR' on 19 October 1995

1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Judgment ?

4. Whether this case involves substantial question of law as tothe interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?

Special Civil Application No.207 & 208 of 1995:

Mr. K.S. Nanavati, Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. H.K. Rathod, Advocate for the respondents.

Special Civil Application No.1030 &1031 of 1995:

Mr. H.K. Rathod, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. K.S. Nanavati, Advocate for the respondent.

Coram: B.C.Patel,J.And H.R. Shelat,J.

(19-10-1995)

1. All these four petitions are disposed of by a commonJudgment though the subject matter arises from two differentawards from two group of petitions namely, Special CivilApplications Nos.207 & 1031 of 1995 and Special CivilApplications Nos. 208 & 1030 of 1995 is same and as the shortpoint involved in all the petitions is also the same.

2. These petitions arise from two references, namely,Reference (LCR) No. 155 of 1990 and Reference (LCR) No. 1519 of1989 wherein disputes were raised by two different workmen andultimately the competent authority under the provisions containedin the Industrial Disputes Act referred the matter to the LabourCourt, Rajkot. In both the References, the impugned awards arepronounced on 15-10-1994 by respondent No.2 and the workmenconcerned were ordered to be reinstated in service. The employeras well as the workmen have challenged the impugned awards. Theemployer has challenged the awards on the ground that nosufficient and reasonable opportunity has been given to place thematter before the Labour Court; hence the impugned awards arebad; and should be quashed and set aside. Against respondentNo.2 Presiding Officer, Special Civil Applications were preferredseeking writ of quo-warranto on the ground that his appointmentas Labour Court Judge was in contravention of Section 9(2) of TheBombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 as he was not qualified forbeing appointed as a Judge of the Labour Court. Afterconsidering various contentions raised by the parties, the Courtallowed the petition and issued a writ as prayed for andrespondent No.2 was restrained from discharging any of thefunctions, rights or duties as a Presiding Officer of the LabourCourt. The Judgment delivered by the Court is reported in1995(2)G.L.R. 1028.

3. It transpires from Special Civil Application No. 207 of1995, that by an order dated 31st August 1994, the Labour Courtcancelled the Vakalatnama of the advocate who was appearing onbehalf of the employer. Similarly, from the record of SpecialCivil Application No. 208 of 1995, it appears that the LabourCourt cancelled the Vakalatnama of an Advocate representing theemployer. Before the Division Bench of this Court, it waspointed out that about 900 vakalatnamas have been cancelled byrespondent No.2 on 31st August, 1994 and this Court has quashedand set aside that order by which vakalatnamas were cancelled.In view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Division Benchof this Court, without entering into the merits of the case, weset aside the impugned awards dated 15-10-1994 and also theorders dated 31-8-1994 by which Vakalatnamas of learnedadvocates, appearing on behalf of the employers, were cancelledby the respondent No.2. In the result, we accept the petitions

of petitioners being Special Civil Application No. 207 of 1995and Special Civil Application No. 208 of 1995, and direct theLabour Court to proceed with the matters from the stage at whichthe vakalatnamas of the advocates came to be cancelled on31-8-1994. In view of this order, we do not pass any furtherorders in Special Civil Applications Nos 1030 and 1031 of 1995preferred by workmen.

4. At the time of admission, in both these matters namely Special Civil Application No. 207 and 208 of 1995, the Courtstayed the operation of the impugned award subject to theprovisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Mr.Rathod, learned Advocate for the workmen pointed out, by filingan affidavit that in the month of February 1995 it has beenpointed out to the employer that there is a breach of Section 17Bof the Act. He further submitted that by a registered letter theemployer was informed of the same but however till this date theamount is not paid as required to be paid in view of the orderpassed by this Court. Under the circumstances, it is directedthat the workman shall be paid wages from 13th January 1995 tillthis date with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.

5. The petitions are filed by Gujarat State ForestDevelopment Corporation Ltd, Rajkot, a public coproration.Inspite of the fact that the court passed the order on 13thJanuary 1995, the Corporation has not complied with the order.Even though affidavit is placed on record by the workmen and aletter to that effect is also addressed to the Project Officer aswell as to the Managing Director of the Corporation, no one hasbothered to see that the workmen are not deprived of the benefitswhich otherwise they are entitled to under Section 17B of theIndustrial Disputes Act. Under these circumstances, it would bejust and proper to see that the Corporation may not suffer forthe negligence of its officers and the amount of interest, whichis required to be paid to the workmen, is recovered from theProject Officer, Rajkot, Mr. Jagannathan and Managing Directorof the Corporation. However, it would be open for the ManagingDirector of the Corporation to hold an enquiry and to find outthe erring person who is liable to make the payment of interestand it will be open to him to recover the amount of interest fromsuch person, but he should certainly see that the burden ofpayment of amount of interest is not on the corporation. It isdirected that if the Managing Director holds an enquiry todetermine the liability of erring person and recovers the amountof interest, then the Managing Director shall complete suchenquiry and shall submit a report to that effect within a periodof 3 months from today. It is also directed that the amount ofwages shall be paid within ariod of one week from today and theamount of interest may be paid within a period of one month fromtoday.

Rule is made absolute in Special Civil Applications Nos.207 of 1995 and 208 of 1995. Rule is discharged in Special CivilApplications Nos. 1030 and 1031 of 1995.

......