Gujarat High Court
Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation vs Chandubhai Valjibhai Chauhanthru ... on 21 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17687/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17687 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Versus
CHANDUBHAI VALJIBHAI CHAUHANTHRU LEGAL HERIS SUNDARBEN
CHANDULAL CHAUHAN
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
KHUSHBU D CHHAYA(8093) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 21/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed challenging the award passed by the learned labour court, Bhavnagar in Reference Application No.40 of 2006 directing the present petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.91,570/- at the rate of 8% towards the salary from 24.02.2005 to 31.03.2006.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the petitioner was serving as a Peon in the Filter Department of the Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 10:43:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17687/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and entered into the chamber of the Municipal Commissioner at 5.30 p.m. on 29.06.2000 alongwith other employees and brought out the dead body of a dog from a jute bag and misbehaved with the Municipal Commissioner. A note was put up by the Municipal Commissioner with regard to the conduct of the respondent, thereafter, the respondent was placed under suspension vide order dated 29.06.2000 and has been served with the chargesheet on 03.07.2000. Concluding the full fledged departmental inquiry, the report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer, proving the charges leveled against the respondent on 10.09.2001 and thereafter, second show cause notice was issued on the respondent on 20.10.2001. Thereafter, vide order dated 08.01.2002, the service of the respondent was dismissed by the petitioner employer. The said dismissal order was challenged before the learned labour court, Bhavnagar by filing the reference being Reference (LCB) No.121 of 2002 which was awarded in favour of the respondent by granting the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages as well as with penalty of stoppage of five increments with future Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 10:43:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17687/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined effect.
2.1. Challenging the above order, the petition came to be filed by the Corporation being Special Civil Application no.22210 of 2005 which came to be withdrawn on 27.12.2005 by the Corporation. Thereafter, the order was passed reinstating the respondent to his service on 31.03.2006 as the order passed by the learned reference court dated 24.12.2005 was implemented on 31.03.2006, therefore, recovery application came to be filed claiming the salary for the period commencing from 16.04.2005 to 01.02.2006. Learned labour court has allowed the application vide order dated 21.02.2018 directing the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.91,570/- with 8% interest which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms.Khushboo Chhaya for the respondent.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that learned labour court has committed an error in exercising the jurisdiction under section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "ID Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 10:43:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17687/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined Act") by granting the amount of salary from the period between when the award was passed and from when it was implemented. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that though the claim made by the respondent was disputed, without considering the submission made and dealing with the contention raised, the impugned order is passed directing the present petitioner to pay the amount of salary and therefore, same is required to be interfered with and the petition is required to be allowed.
5. As against the same learned advocate Ms.Chhaya submits that challenging the award passed by the learned labour court directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent to his original post, petition which was filed was withdrawn before this Court, therefore, the learned labour court has rightly exercised its power under section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act and directed the present petitioner to pay the amount as claimed by the present respondent and therefore, no interference is required and the petition is required to be dismissed.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned advocates for the respective parties and the reasons Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 10:43:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17687/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined assigned by the learned labour court while allowing the application, it emerges that the reference which was filed before the learned labour court challenging the order of termination was held in favour of the present respondent by granting the relief of reinstatement without back wages and with continuity of service. The award passed by the learned labour court dated 24.02.2005 was not implemented up to 31.03.2006. The respondent has also filed a complaint for the breach of award on 24.02.2006 and thereafter, the respondent was reinstated to his original post on 01.04.2006. As the wages which is required to be paid for the period between when the award was passed and the actual implementation, is not paid, therefore, by filing the recovery application the amount of Rs.91,570/- was claimed. From the reasons assigned by the learned labour court, it emerges that there is no dispute with regard to the amount claimed, however, the only contention is that there is no preexisting right.
7. This Court is of the view that the preexisting right was flaws from the award passed by the learned labour court dated 24.02.2005, therefore, learned labour court has Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 10:43:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17687/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined not committed an error in granting the salary for the period commencing from 16.04.2005 to 01.02.2006 with interest at the rate of 8%. As this Court did not find any infirmity in the impugned order, in considered opinion of this Court, this petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 10:43:00 IST 2025