Saurashtra Employees Union vs H K Patel - Chief Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 15021 Guj

     C/MCA/1081/2019                              IA ORDER DATED: 24/09/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


 MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR EXTENSION OF TIME) NO. 1 of 2020
           In R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1081 of 2019
          In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1143 of 2018
==========================================================

H K PATEL - CHIEF OFFICER Versus SAURASHTRA EMPLOYEES UNION ========================================================== Appearance:

for the PETITIONER(s) No. MR BHAVESH P TRIVEDI for the PETITIONER(s) No. MR RR TRIVEDI for the PETITIONER(s) No. MR ANAND B GOGIA for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MS MUSKAN A GOGIA for the RESPONDENT(s) No. NOTICE SERVED for the RESPONDENT(s) No. ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

Date : 24/09/2021

IA ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)

1. The applicant herein is the original opponent in the

contempt application where this Court on 13.08.2020 passed

the following order: -

"The present application under the Contempt of Courts Act was filed as the judgment and award dated 26th February, 2016 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No.23 of 1995 along with Reference (IT) Nos.22 of 1995, 35 of 1996, 218 of 1997, 262 of 1997, 263 of 1997 and Reference (IT) No.41 of 2000 confirmed in Special Civil Application and further in the Letters Patent Appeal by this Court, was not complied with.

2. We had passed orders on different occasions observing the process which was undertaken at the

C/MCA/1081/2019 IA ORDER DATED: 24/09/2021

end of the authorities including the Commissioner of Municipalities to comply with the directions.

3. Lastly on 29th July, 2020, following order was passed.

"1. As required by learned Assistant Government Pleader we had last time granted a week's time. The Commissioner of Municipality has already received the proposal and the same had been forwarded to the Urban Housing and Urban Development Department which, in turn, had send to the Finance Department, where it is pending for consideration.

2. Let the entire process be over within two weeks. Noticing the fact that the LPA Bench has decided the matter in the month of March, 2019 and thereafter no challenge has been made before the Apex Court, opponent authority ought to have complied with it long back.

3. If the compliance is not done within two weeks, the Principal Secretary, Urban Housing and Urban Development Department shall remain personally present through video conference before this Court along with the affidavit-inreply, on the returnable date i.e. on 13.08.2020."

4. Today learned advocate Mr.Bhavesh Trivedi for opponent Chief Officer appears and states that formal orders are passed and the directions are complied with. Learned advocate Mr.Gogia confirms that the Commissioner of Municipalities has passed necessary orders which were sent to the Municipality and Municipality has acted upon thereon except that the arrears for the intervening period are yet to be paid.

5. The above facts suggest that the directions are substantially complied with save the payment of arrears. Therefore, we close this contempt proceeding by directing that th e respondent

C/MCA/1081/2019 IA ORDER DATED: 24/09/2021

authorities shall act in coordination to ensure that the arrears payable to the applicants shall be paid within six weeks.

In case of genuine difficulty, either side is at liberty to approach this Court."

2. By way of present application, a request is made for

extension of time of 12 months. We could notice that out of

the total sum of Rs. 4,16,41,931/-, the amount of Rs.

26,40,485/- has been disbursed. Thereafter, additionally the

sum of Rs. 57,54,568/- has been paid to the employees.

3. The applicant is before this Court urging that arrears of

6th Pay Commission also remains and 7 th Pay Commission has

not been paid to all the employees. It is the say of the

applicant that the regular employees of municipality have not

been given these benefits of 7 th Pay Commission in an anxiety

that the same may cross the limit of 48% which is the cap on

the expenditure to be made on establishment.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Bhavesh Trivedi appeared for the

petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Anand Gogia represented

the Saurashtra Employees Union in the main petition and who

has been requested by the Court to seek instructions on the

version of applicant Municipality since he defends the Union.

Individual details though are not available with either of these

counsels, we are, for present, focusing on the extension of

C/MCA/1081/2019 IA ORDER DATED: 24/09/2021

time limit which is sought before us. Instead of granting the

request upto 31.03.2022, we deem it appropriate to extend it

till 31.12.2021 with a clarification that any payment made

towards the benefit of 6th and 7th Pay Commission to the

employees as per the direction of this Court, shall not be

counted for limiting the disbursement in the expenditure for

the purpose of considering the cap of 48%.

5. We have expressed earlier also and we reiterate that the

payment as may be made shall be essentially through the

account-payee-cheque or directly in the respective account of

the employee. No cash transaction shall be made at any stage.

6. In the event of any difficulties, either side is at liberty to

approach this Court.

7. Present Misc. Civil Application stands disposed of

accordingly.

(SONIA GOKANI, J)

(N.V.ANJARIA, J) Bhoomi