Gujarat High Court
Idmc Limited (Indian Dairy ... vs Rameshbhai Paulbhai Parmar on 29 June, 2021
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
C/SCA/8958/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/06/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8958 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8959 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8960 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8961 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8962 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8963 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8964 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8965 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8966 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8967 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8968 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8969 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8970 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8971 of 2021
==========================================================
IDMC LIMITED (INDIAN DAIRY MACHINARY CO. LIMITED)
Versus
RAMESHBHAI PAULBHAI PARMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
RONAK D CHAUHAN(7709) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 29/06/2021
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. D. G. Chauhan, learned advocate with Mr. Ronak
D. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner.
C/SCA/8958/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/06/2021
2. According to his submission, though the benefits claimed
under the impugned judgment and award were paid till
31.12.2014 was under mistaken belief by the petitioner, and as
per the interim order dated 10.08.2006, the respondent-
workmen are not entitled to yearly increments, two pairs of
uniform, a pair of shoes as also yearly benefits. He further
submitted that there is no preexisting right determined by any
authority for claiming such benefits and therefore,
respondent-workmen are not entitled for the same and hence,
an order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court
Anand, is without jurisdiction. As such according to the
interim order passed in a petition filed by the petitioner,
wages and allowances, which are being paid to their regular
employees have to be paid to the respondent-workmen,
which includes even yearly increments. The petitioner cannot
refuse to pay such increments to the present respondent-
workmen on a spacious belief that they are not regular
employees, and they are not to be paid wages plus allowances
at par with regular employees of the petitioner. If the yearly
increments are to be paid to the regular employees of the
petitioner, the respondent-workmen shall have to be paid
increments as per interim order dated 10.08.2006, which is at
page no.25 of the petition.
3. So far as interim relief is concerned, since the petitioner had
paid all the benefits to the present workmen till 2014, even the
petitioner construed he is supposed to pay what is claimed in
the award and under the guise of correcting mistake, he
C/SCA/8958/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/06/2021
cannot avoid the liability, therefor for the time being, interim
relief can not be granted, which shall be considered after
bipartite hearing in this case.
4. Hence, Notice returnable on 09.08.2021.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J)
TUVAR
