Gujarat High Court
Amirali Abdulbhai Pirani - ... vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ... on 4 May, 2022
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/21391/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21391 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
AMIRALI ABDULBHAI PIRANI - DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS
Versus
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
================================================================
Appearance:
AADITYA D BHATT(8580) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
CHANDNI S JOSHI(9490) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 04/05/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Yogi K. Gadhia, learned
advocate waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent -
Life Insurance Corporation of India.
2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for
C/SCA/21391/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2022
the respective parties, the petition is taken up for its final
disposal.
3. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(a) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct
while correctly interpreting the order dated
29.11.2002 passed by the Central Industrial
Tribunal, Bhavnagar that the present petitioner
has been granted the Post Retirement benefits
vide the said order dated 29.11.2002 and
therefore the present petitioner is entitled to the
Post Retirement / Terminal benefits, i.e. Pension,
P. F. Gratuity etc., in the interest of justice;
(b) Pending admission, hearing and final
disposal of the present petition, the Honorable
Court may permit the present petitioner to
withdraw Rs.4,38,857/-, while keeping his claims
and contentions open for other and further
pecuniary benefits as being claimed by the
present petitioner in the present petition."
4. The facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner
alongwith two other employees faced departmental proceedings
and was dismissed from service by an order dated 30.3.1995.
Common departmental proceedings were held against the
petitioner and the other two employees. The issues were a
subject-matter of challenge before the Industrial Tribunal,
Bhavnagar.
C/SCA/21391/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2022
5. By separate awards, the Tribunal as far as the petitioner is
concerned granted him relief of setting aside the order of
dismissal and granting him the benefit as if he was to be
reinstated in service till the date of retirement with 75% back-
wages. The awards of the other two employees of the Tribunal
which were of 30.11.2002 specifically provided for grant of
terminal benefits.
6. Mr. Aaditya D. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that a clarification needs to be made in the order
of the Tribunal clarifying that the petitioner based on the order
of dismissal being set aside is entitled to terminal benefits as
was granted to the other two employees.
7. Mr. Yogi K. Gadhia, learned counsel for the respondent -
Life Insurance Corporation of India referring to the affidavit-in-
reply would submit that in the case of petitioner, the Tribunal
knowingly make a distinction and left it sort of granting benefits
of terminal benefits.
8. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates
C/SCA/21391/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2022
for the respective parties, what is evident is that after the order
of the Tribunal was passed in the year 2002, the LIC challenged
the awards by filing three separate petitions. In case of the
petitioners, the concerned SCA was, Special Civil Application
No.2728 of 2003. The petitions of the Corporation stood
dismissed by CAV Judgment dated 31.7.2018. The petitioner
approached this Court by seeking a clarification of the order by
filing Misc. Civil Application (For Clarification) No.1 of 2019 in
Special Civil Application No.2728 of 2003. The order dated
22.10.2019 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Misc. Civil Application (For Clarification) No.1 of 2019 in
Special Civil Application No.2728 of 2003 reads as under:
"1. The applicant is before this Court with the
following main relief:
"a. The Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to clarify that this Hon'ble
Court has confirmed the order passed by
the Central Industrial Tribunal, dated
29.11.2002, in its entirety and
therefore the present applicant is
entitled to the terminal benefits, i.e.
Pension, PF, Gratuity, etc."
2. The applicant is aggrieved by the
fact that he has been paid a sum of
Rs.4,38,857/- which is the amount towards
75% of salary from 30.10.1999 and no other
amount. Whereas, two of his colleagues, who
C/SCA/21391/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2022
also had faced the departmental
proceedings had been granted all retiral
benefits, however, the applicant is being left
out.
3. On a preliminary hearing of the learned
advocate Mr. Aaditya Bhatt appearing for
the applicant and learned advocate Mr. Yogi
Gadhia appearing for the respondent Life
Insurance Corporation Ltd., this Court notices
that there is a specific direction in case of the
rest of the two employees for grant of retiral
benefits, which has been lacking in the case of
the present applicant. Since it is a
question of interpretation, it would require
to file substantive petition, rather than
clarification application. It is surely not the
case of the clarification, after the Court has
ceased to deal with the matter on having
delivered the judgment in the year 2018.
Therefore, without hampering the rights of
the either side to contend on facts and law as
has been done in the instant case and as may
be available under the law, this
application is disposed of. It shall not come in
the way of either side in taking future recourse
as permitted by the law.
. This Court has not entered into the merits
of the case.
. This application is disposed of,
accordingly."
9. As Mr. Bhatt would submit, the review / clarification was
disposed of with a liberty to take appropriate proceedings in
law. Hence, the petition.
C/SCA/21391/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2022
10. It is the case, where the petitioner even in the year 2003,
after the Corporation filed petitions challenging the awards did
not think it fit to approach this Court seeking parity based on
the awards of the two other employees and making it a ground
to challenge the award of the Tribunal. This was, therefore a
clearly a case of an after-thought not only pursuing the review
application but filing the present petition.
11. In absence of any positive directions given by the Tribunal
in the year 2002 which were accepted by the petitioner, no case
is made out for clarification. Hence, the petition stands
dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. No
order as to costs.
12. As far as the undisputed amount is concerned, the
Corporation shall ensure that the same shall be paid to the
original claimants before the Tribunal in accordance with law,
preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this order.
[ BIREN VAISHNAV, J. ]
VATSAL S. KOTECHA
