Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.
Learned advocate Mr. Mishra has filed affidavit before this Court opposing admission.
The present petitioner Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has filed present petition challenging order passed by Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Review Application (IT) No.2 of 2006 in Approval Application (IT) No.594 of 2004 dated 1st October 2009, where, Review Application is dismissed by Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The Approval Application is filed by Corporation for approval of action of removal from service taken against the workman. During the pendency of said approval application, the workman had filed mercy petition under Sec.56(4) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act. The Corporation allowed the mercy petition and instead of removal from service, workman was ordered to be compulsorily retired from services of the Corporation from the date of his removal and workman has held entitled to receive all the benefits available to him as per rules and regulations of the Corporation. Therefore, one purshis Ex.7 was filed by Corporation before Industrial Tribunal where approval application was pending with a prayer that approval application may be disposed of as appeal of the workman was allowed and workman was reinstated in service and in those circumstances, appropriate order be passed in approval application. In fact, workman was not reinstated, but, was ordered to be compulsorily retired from service of the Corporation. Therefore, present petition is filed by petitioner.
Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submitted that at present, workman is remained without benefits either no benefits is extended in favour of workman for not granting approval application or no retirement benefits is paid on the basis of order passed by Corporation under Sec.56(4) of BPMC Act. The order dated 7th March 2005 passed by Corporation is at Page 7, Annexure 'A'. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra also submitted that removal has been considered to be a compulsory retirement by Corporation.
In light of this, it is directed to petitioner to pay whatever retirement benefits available to respondent workman pursuant to the order dated 7th Mach 2005, Page 7, Annexure 'A' to the concerned workman respondent on or before 30th June 2010 without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both respective parties.
Accordingly, matter is adjourned to 30 th June 2010.
Direct service is permitted.
[H.K.
RATHOD, J.] #Dave Top