1.0 Heard learned advocates for both the sides.
2.0 This Court on 23.09.2011 passed the order in Special Civil Application No. 13759 of 2001 which reads as under:
"1.0 Heard learned advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya for the petitioner - Manager, Gujarat Electricity Board, now, Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. The learned advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to page Nos. 17 and 18, wherein, the Schedule of Reference No. 86 of 1996 and Schedule of Reference No. 45 of 1997 are reproduced. The learned advocate for the petitioner, thereafter, invited attention of the Court to 'Issues' raised by the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal for his consideration. They are at Para 14. The learned advocate for the petitioner successfully demonstrated that the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal has misdirected himself by raising an 'Issue' at serial No.
5, which is to the effect, 'whether the contracts between the board and the contractor are genuine or not'. Similarly, the learned advocate for the petitioner also invited attention of the Court to 'Issue' No. 7, which is to the effect, 'whether the work taken by the first party company and the contractor from the concerned workmen is sham and bogus paper arrangement or not'. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that, thus, the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal has travelled beyond the scope of the Reference and has ordered that, 'all the workmen should be considered to be permanent employees of the petitioner since 1st November 1996 and they should be paid all benefits paid to the permanent employees at 50%'. It is also ordered by the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal that, 'the services put in by the workmen prior to 1st November 1996 should be considered on notional basis'. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the financial burden of the aforesaid order will run into the crores of rupees.
2.0 Rule.
Notice as to interim relief returnable on 14th October 2011.
2.1 Ad-interim relief in terms of Para 7(B). Direct service is permitted.
3.0 Learned advocate for the respondent contended that the petitioner has obtained registration in the year 1976 as per Contract Labour Act 1970 but in the registration certificate there is no mentioning with respect to the work of coal mill. She submitted that it is admitted that there is no registration or licence.
4.0 Learned advocate for the respondent further contended that it is proved that the work of the workmen is of perennial nature and the Deputy General Manager of the petitioner Board accepted in his deposition that the workmen of Reference No. 05 of 1982 have been shifted to other place after making them permanent and at that place, the workmen of the contractor are working which is sham and bogus as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, the ad-interim relief granted on 23.09.2011 may not be confirmed and the same is required to be vacated.
5.0 However, the learned Single Judge while granting ad-interim relief has also dealt with the aforesaid contention and prima facie found that the Industrial Tribunal has travelled beyond the scope of the reference. Hence, it will not be appropriate to vacate interim relief at this stage.
6.0 The interim relief granted earlier stands confirmed. However it is clarified that the service condition of the respondents-workmen will not be changed without permission of this Court.
7.0 All the matters are fixed for final hearing on 03.07.2012.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru* Top