(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. Though this matter is listed for admission today, but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we have taken up the matter for final disposal at the admission stage.
2. We have heard Mr.Kamal Trivedi, Senior counsel assisted by Mr.Dharmesh Shah, appearing for the appellant and Mr.Mukul Sinha, assisted by Mr.K.G.Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 22.7.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.1905 of 2011 and the order dated 27.7.2012 passed by the learned Single in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.2478 of 2011 filed for the review of the judgment dated 22.7.2012.
4. The respondents workmen claimed overtime allowance, bonus, LTC allowance and medical allowance etc. which were granted by the Labour Court. Though in the application filed before the Labour Court by the workmen 18% interest was claimed, but no interest was awarded by the Labour Court in its Award dated 25.1.2010. The workmen filed an Appeal claiming interest before Industrial Court. The Industrial Court by its order dated 14.10.2010 dismissed the claim of interest made by the respondents workmen. The respondents thereafter filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.1905 of 2011 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 22.7.2011 and 10% interest was awarded. The present appellant filed a Review Application which was also rejected by order dated 27.7.2012.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that while rejecting the claim of interest, the Industrial Court has given two reasons, first that under the settlement between the workmen and employer, no interest was awarded and the second that the bank was under liquidation, therefore, there is no question of awarding any interest. The learned Single Judge, without setting aside the findings of the Labour Court, on the aforesaid two grounds, has awarded 10% interest.
6. According to Mr.Mukul Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the order was a consent order and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not required to go into various details and record further reasons since the appellant had agreed to pay interest in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in Saijpur Bogha Nagarpalika Octroi Karmachari Mandal and another v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and another, 1991(2) GLH 186. The argument is refuted by the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition as well as in the Review Petition. So far as the consent of the appellant is concerned, it is no doubt true that the appellant has given their consent for final disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage, but we do not find that there is any mention that the appellant had given their consent so far as payment of 10% interest is concerned. Even in the order passed in Review application, the learned Single Judge has recorded that consent was also given as mentioned in para-3 of the judgment given in the writ petition. But it is nowhere written by the learned Single Judge that the consent was also given by the appellant with regard to paragraph 4, 5 and 6 also of the judgment. In this view of the matter, since the learned Single Judge has not dealt with two questions and has not reversed the findings recorded by the Industrial Court on the two grounds mentioned above. We are of the opinion that the judgment passed by the learned Single in the writ petition cannot be maintained and deserves to be set aside. Interest of justice would be served if the learned Single Judge is requested to decide the matter afresh and deal with two questions on the basis of which the Industrial Court has refused payment of interest.
8. In the result, this Letters Patent Appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment dated 22.7.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.1905 of 2011 as well as the order dated 27.7.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.2478 of 2011 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge with a request to decide the matter afresh expeditiously. We make it clear that we have not entered into merits of the questions which are required to be decided by the learned Single Judge after considering the reasons given by the Industrial Court. The parties shall bear their own costs. As Letters Patent Appeal is allowed, Civil Application does not survive.
(V.M.SAHAI,J) (G.B.SHAH,J) ***vcdarji