1. By way of these petitions, the petitioner has challenged the common judgement and order dated 15.03.2011, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar, in I.T. Application No.20 of 2010 and 24 to 30 of 2010 in I.T. Reference No.115 of 2000, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the said applications and set aside the order dated 21.11.2009 passed by the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, the petitioner herein.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of these petitions are that one G.S. Barot was entrusted Arbitration Case No. 1 of 1984 for the purpose of determining the pay scales of employees working in Bhavnagar Nagar Palika in terms of the 4th Pay Revision, as per the recommendations of the Pay Commission.
2.1. The present respondents were relieved from the arbitration proceedings on the ground that they were officers and do not fall within the definition of workman. Thereafter, the petitioner-Nagarpalika fixed the pay-scale of the respondents as 2500-75-3100-100-4200. The Commissioner, vide order dated 28.2.1991 directed to implement the Resolution subject to approval and sanction from the State Government. The Corporation vide resolution dated 10.9.1993 revised the pay-scales of the officers to the pay scale of 2500-4200 from 2200-4000. The State Government refused the said pay revision and directed the Commissioner to reduce the pay scale.
2.2. Thereafter, respondents approached the Tribunal by filing Reference IT No.115 of 2000, wherein the Corporation filed its reply on 3.10.2001. The State Government again rejected the request of the Corporation regarding pay-Revision. The State Government vide letter dated 3.11.2008 directed the Corporation to recover additional payment made to the respondents. In pursuance to the said order the Commissioner vide order dated 21.11.2009 directed to recover all additional payments. Therefore, the respondents filed IT applications in the I.T. Reference No. 115 of 2005 against the recovery order The Tribunal vide order dated 15.03.2011 allowed the said applications and quashed and set aside the order dated 21.11.2009. Hence, these petitions.
3. I have heard learned advocates appearing for both the parties. It appears from the record that before passing the order of recovery the State Government ought to have followed due process of law. Atlreast the concerned authority ought to have issued notice to the respondents, informing about the recovery. In the present case I find that no such action has been initiated by the authority concerned before issuance of order of recovery. Hence, the said order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the Tribunal has rightly allowed the applications filed by the respondents.
4. In view of the above, all the petitions stands dismissed. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner-corporation to initiate necessary action after following due process of law.
[K.S.
JHAVERI,J.] pawan Top