Gujarat High Court
Umarbhai Hasanbhai Sida vs Assistant Director, Junagadh ... on 26 October, 2021
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/9427/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/10/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9427 of 2019
==========================================================
UMARBHAI HASANBHAI SIDA
Versus
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, JUNAGADH AGRICULTURE University
==========================================================
Appearance:
MRS KRISHNA G RAWAL(1315) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DG CHAUHAN(218) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RONAK D CHAUHAN(7709) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 26/10/2021
ORAL ORDER
[1] The present petition has been filed seeking
the following prayers:-
"A. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the respondent authority to comply
with the order of the learned Labour Court by directing the post of
Peon to the petitioner forthwith.
B. Further be pleased to direct the respondent authority to pay
the regular Pay Scale to the petitioner.
C. By way of interim relief, be pleased to direct the respondent
to permit the petitioner to resume the duty on the post of peon or
any other equivalent post. Farm labourer is not the equivalent post
to the peon.
D. further be pleased to direct the respondent to treat the
petitioner permanent with his initial date of appointment and to
pay all the consequential benefits to the petitioner."
[2] Thus, the petitioner is seeking compliance of
the award dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Labour
Court, Junagadh in Reference (T) No.42 of 1998,
whereby and wherein the Reference was partly
C/SCA/9427/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/10/2021
allowed and the respondent University was
directed to reinstate the petitioner in service
with 50% back wages. It is submitted that though
the aforesaid award is passed, the respondent has
not reinstated the petitioner in service.
[3] Learned advocate Mrs.Krishna G. Rawal for the
petitioner has submitted that prior to the
aforesaid award, there was an industrial dispute
raised with regard to the termination of the
petitioner dated 21.07.1997, which was also the
subject matter of Reference being (LCJ) No.42 of
1998. By the award dated 14.10.2002, the Labour
Court has allowed the Reference by directing the
respondent University to reinstate the petitioner
with continuity of service with 75% back wages.
Since the aforesaid award was not complied with;
the petitioner has filed Recovery Application
No.21 of 2003, whereas the respondent preferred
Misc. Application No. 26 of 2004 for setting
aside the order dated 14.10.2002 passed in
Reference being (LCJ) No.42 of 1998 and the same
was allowed with a condition to deposit cost of
Rs.2,000/-. Since the aforesaid condition was not
complied with, the Labour Court further proceeded
with the Recovery Application and the same was
allowed with some modifications in the wages and
the amount, which was deposited with the Recovery
Application was ordered to be paid to the
C/SCA/9427/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/10/2021
petitioner.
[4] Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the
petitioner has challenged the same by filing a
petition being Special Civil Application No.
15494 of 2010, as it was his case that the amount
claimed was not allowed fully. The respondent
also challenged the award dated 14.10.2002 and
order dated 12.08.2018 imposing the cost by way
of filing a petition being Special Civil
Application No. 8380 of 2011. By the order dated
16.02.2016, this Court has remanded the matter
back to the Labour Court for deciding the
Reference afresh. It was also observed by this
Court that the amount of back wages paid to the
workman, which shall not be disturbed and shall
be adjusted against the fresh award. After the
remand of the matter, the Labour Court decided
the award afresh and vide award dated 30.08.2016
by directing the respondent University to
reinstate the petitioner with 50% back wages with
continuity of service. Since the petitioner was
not reinstated, the captioned writ petition has
been filed seeking implementation of the
directions issued by the Labour Court in
Reference (T) No.42 of 1998 in the award dated
30.08.2016.
[5] When a specific query was raised with regard
C/SCA/9427/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/10/2021
to maintainability of the present writ petition,
learned advocate Mrs.Krishna G Rawal has placed
reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Food Corporation of India vs. Head
Load Labour Congress reported in (2018) 17 SCC 92
and has submitted that the present writ petition
for implementation of the award is maintainable.
[6] This Court has perused the aforesaid judgment
and directions issued by the Supreme Court, the
facts narrated in the said judgment are totally
different from the facts of the present case as
in the Supreme Court the award had already
attained finality in petitions filed before the
High Court as well as before the Supreme Court.
[7] At this stage, it would be apposite to refer
to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of Alwar Cooperative Credit Society vs. Shamlal
reported in (1995) 2 GLH 550, where the Supreme
Court has enunciated that the contempt
proceedings for non-compliance of the order/award
are not maintainable as remedy for execution is
already provided under the provision of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D.Act). In the
present case, the petitioner has directly filed
the writ petition for compliance of the award
without resorting to the remedy provided in the
I.D.Act.
C/SCA/9427/2019 ORDER DATED: 26/10/2021
[8] Thus, there is an effective remedy provided
by the Act for execution of the award under the
provision of Section 33(C) of the I.D.Act. The
petitioner should have availed such remedy
instead of filing this writ petition.
[9] In view of the above, the writ petition is
rejected. Notice is discharged. It will be open
for the petitioner to prefer an execution
application before the Labour Court.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
NABILA
