1. Rule.
Mr. H.S.Munshaw, learned Counsel appears and waives notice of Rule on behalf of the Opponent-Panchayat.
2. By way of this application the applicant-original respondent has prayed for the following reliefs :
"(A) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to allow this application.
(B) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to direct the opponent to pay the wages at rate of minimum wages as per the direction of this Hon'ble Court in Civil Application No.8696 of 2009 in Special Civil Application No. 6795 of 2001 order dated 18.8.10 from September, 2010 till the final disposal of the petition.
(C) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to direct the opponent to pay the remaining due arrears from 01.05.2004 till August, 2010 as the opponent has not paid the full month wages.
(D) Any other and further relief may kindly be granted as Your Lordships deemed fit just and proper in the interest of justice".
3. Before considering the averments made in this application it would be appropriate to note that by way of the main writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6795 of 2001 the opponent herein - original petitioner - Taluka Panchayat has challenged the judgment and award rendered by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No. 181 of 1984 dated 28.2.2001. This Court (Coram : K.M. Mehta, J [as he then was]) by order dated 24.8.2001 was pleased to admit the matter and by way of interim relief directed the petitioner that the workman will be reinstated in service of the petitioner and the petitioner will pay regular salary to the respondent subject to final outcome of the main writ petition.
4. It appears that as the reinstatement was not granted the applicant-original respondent filed Civil Application No. 4174 of 2004 and prayed for the benefits as provided under Section 17B of the I.D. Act. This Court ( Coram : Akil Kureshi, J.) vide order dated 24.6.2004 was pleased to allow said application and passed the following order :
Heard the learned advocates for the parties.
2. By the order dated 24.8.2001, this Court had admitted the main Special Civil Application and provided that the petitioner will reinstate the workman. It is pointed out to me that the said order of the learned single Judge was carried in appeal by the petitioner and the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.946 of 2001 in Special Civil Application No.6795 of 2001 by the order dated 6.8.2003 granted stay against reinstatement of the workman and accordingly, the workman has not been given the benefit of reinstatement pursuant to the award of the Labour Court.
3. The applicant, i.e. original respondent has filed this Civil Application claiming the benefits under the provisions of section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Along with the Civil Application, he has filed a separate affidavit in which it is stated that he has made sincere efforts to secure employment, but he is unemployed till today. He, therefore, claims benefits under the provisions of section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
4. In view of the fact that the statement made on oath by the applicant is not controverted by the opponent, original petitioner, I direct that the petitioner (opponent herein) shall pay to the applicant the benefits under the provisions of section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The arrears to be paid within a period of four months from today and regular monthly payment to be made hereafter. With these directions, Civil Application stands disposed of.
5. Thereafter, the applicant herein filed another Civil Application being Civil Application No. 5437 of 2005 as the opponent-original petitioner did not comply with the direction issued by this Court. The petitioner also challenged order dated 24.6.2004 before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1516 of 2004. The said Appeal came to be disposed of by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court consisting of by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S.Garg (as he then was) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.R.Tripathi vide order dated 14.6.2005 and observed thus :
"1.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant (respondent before the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6795 of 2001) is before this Court with a grievance that the order dated 24.6.2004, passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to law and facts and is bad in law.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the original petitioner had made an application claiming benefits under the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and the learned Single Judge illegally allowed the application.
3.It is to be seen from the order passed by the learned Single Judge that the statement on oath made by the original petitioner was not controverted by the present appellant/original respondent. If uncontroverted statement is relied upon by the learned Single Judge, then, no wrong can be found in the same. We find no reason to interfere. The appeal is dismissed. It is expected of the appellant that within a period of four weeks from today, they will comply with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge."
6. Again thereafter as order dated 24.6.2004 was not complied with and with further prayer that the opponent-original petitioner should grant current wages the applicant herein filed Civil Application No.8696 of 2009 and prayed for the following reliefs :
"(A) Your Lordship be pleased to allow this application.
(B)Your Lordship be pleased to direct the opponent to pay the current minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages Act to the applicant from the date of the Award of the Labour Court or direction for reinstatement in the original post may be given in the interest of justice.
(C)Any other and further relief may be granted as Your Lordship deems fit, just and proper in the interest of justice."
7. It appears from the record of the Civil Application No. 8696 of 2009 that the opponent did file Affidavit-in-Reply and denied the contention raised by the present applicant in the said Civil Application. On perusal of the said Affidavit it transpires that while dealing with the contention by the petitioner in the said application it is interalia contended by the opponent that the applicant has paid wages as fixed while in service.
8. After bipartite hearing this Court (Coram : K.S.Jhaveri, J.) was pleased to dispose of the said Civil Application vide order dated 18.8.2010 and passed the following order :
Heard. In view of the averments made in the application, the same is granted. The respondent is directed to comply with the order dated 24.06.2004 passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 4174 of 2004 and shall pay the minimum wages u/s. 17B of the I.D. Act w.e.f. 01.05.2004 within a period of six weeks from today. The respondent shall thereafter shall pay regular wages to the applicant, on or before 10th of every month.
The application stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute. Registry is directed to list main matter for hearing on 23.09.2010.
9. The present Civil Application is filed on premises of the aforesaid factual background.
10. Mr.
Rathod, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant-original respondent workman has drawn the attention of this Court to the averment made in the Civil Application. Mr. Rathod further pointed out that the opponents have implemented the order/direction issued in order dated 18.8.2010 in Civil Application No. 8696 of 2009 upto August 2010. The said fact is also verified by Taluka Dvelopment Officer Mr.S.K.Menat who is present as per direction issued by this Court vide order dated 11.4.2012.
11. Mr.
Munshaw, learned Counsel appearing for the opponent - Panchayat candidly submitted that the order dated 18.8.2010 passed in Civil Application No.8696 of 2009 as aforesaid has been implemented till August, 2010. Mr. Munshaw further submitted that the said order has not been challenged by the opponent-Panchayat before the higher Forum. Mr. Munshaw, considering the aforesaid aspect, on instructions from Taluka Development Officer - Mr. Menat, who is present that direction issued by this Court as aforesaid in order dated 18.8.2010 passed in Civil Application No. 8696 of 2009 shall be implemented. Mr. Munshaw further submitted that as the opponent-original petitioner is of the Local Authority it will take some time for certain procedural aspect and therefore prayed that this Court may grant some time to make further payment of arrears of wages from September, 2010 till May, 2012 i.e. current month. Mr. Munshaw therefore submitted that at least time of about four weeks may be granted to the opponent to comply with the order. Mr. Munshaw submitted that this statement is made in presence of Taluka Development Officer, who is present in the Court and as per the instructions from Taluka Development Officer Mr. Munshaw states that payment of arrears of regular wages as provided in order dated 18.8.2010 passed by this Court (Coram : K.S.Jhaveri, J.) in Civil Application No. 8696 of 2009 shall be paid to the applicant-original respondent workman latest by 31.5.2012. Mr. Munshaw further submitted that this statement is made without prejudice to the rights of the opponents to take appropriate contentions in the main writ petition which is pending for its final adjudication.
12. Mr.
Munshaw further requests that as the main matter is of the year 2001 this Court may also fix the main matter for its final hearing at the earliest.
13. Mr.
Rathod, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has no objection if the time is granted to pay arrears and if appropriate directions are issued for payment of the said amount. Mr. Rathod has no objection for hearing of the main matter as prayed by Mr. Munshaw.
14. Considering the above, as per statement made by Mr. Munshaw in presence of Mr. Menat, Taluka Development Officer - Opponent is hereby directed to pay arrears of regular wages as per direction issued by this Court (Coram : K.S.Jhaveri, J.) by order dated 18.8.2010 passed in Civil Application No.8696 of 2009 latest by 31.5.2012.
15. In view of the above, the opponent-original petitioner shall pay regular wages as aforesaid by 10th of every month as per order dated 18.8.2010 passed in Civil Application No. 8696 of 2009. The presence of Taluka Development Officer is noted and in further hearing it is hereby dispensed with.
16. Registry is directed to fix the main matter for final hearing on 18.6.2012.
17. In view of the above, Civil Application is allowed. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(R.M.
Chhaya, J.) M.M.BHATT Top