Gujarat High Court
Sangeetaben Parvatbhai Harijan vs State Of Gujarat on 4 May, 2022
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/2804/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2804 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2874 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2881 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2886 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2883 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2885 of 2022
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 ?
==========================================================
SANGEETABEN PARVATBHAI HARIJAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KURVEN DESAI, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 04/05/2022
Page 1 of 4
Downloaded on : Thu May 05 20:47:25 IST 2022
C/SCA/2804/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Kurven Desai, learned AGP waives
service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State.
2. In all these petitions, the prayer of the petitioners is that the
respondent no. 4 is not initiating any proceedings, much less proceedings
under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act for breach of the award.
The other prayer is to direct the respondent State authorities to
immediately implement the awards passed by the Labour Court.
3. This court on 22.03.2022 passed the following order:
"1. Pursuant to the order dated 09.03.2022, learned AGP
Mr.Rohan Shah has forwarded a communication dated
19.03.2022 written by the Resident Collector, Mahisagar at
Lunavada calling upon the respondent authorities for
hearing, which is scheduled on 24.03.2022.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave has placed reliance on
the judgment dated 28.04.1998 passed in Special Civil
Application No.7737 of 1997 and has submitted that the
respondent no.4 cannot while away the time and sit tight on
the application made by him under Section 29 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the ID Act"). It is
submitted by him that neither the respondent no.4 is
initiating the proceedings nor the award is complied with
and hence, the petitioner is left with no other option, but to
file the present writ petitions. It is submitted by him that as
per the decision of the Division Bench, the writ petition
seeking directions under Section 29 of the ID Act against the
respondent is maintainable.
3. Since the Resident Collector has already initiated the
proceedings and the matter is kept on 24.03.2022, in order to
see the progress in the matters, the matters are kept on
04.04.2022.
C/SCA/2804/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2022
4. Learned AGP Mr.Rohan Shah on the next date of hearing
shall apprise this Court on the further proceedings. Registry
to place a copy of this order in the connected matters."
4. Mr. Dipak Dave has relied on the judgment dated 28.04.1998
passed in Special Civil Application No. 7737 of 1997 as quoted in the
order dated 22.03.2022 hereinabove and has submitted that the
respondent no.4 may be directed to implement the awards in question.
5. The Division Bench in Special Civil Application No. 7737 of 1997
has observed as under:
"9. Admitted facts, which have come on record, show that
after contest by the respondent no.1, the Tribunal upheld the
claim of the petitioner about the invalidity of the action
taken by the respondent no.1. The Tribunal unequivocally
held that the termination of service of the petitioner was
neither justified, nor legal. On the basis of this conclusion,
the Tribunal directed reinstatement of the petitioner with
continuity of service and 60% of the backwages. The
respondent no.1 did not challenge this award before the High
Court under Article 227 or before the Supreme Court under
Article 136 of the Constitution. The petitioner submitted an
application to respondent no.1 requesting him to permit the
petitioner to discharge duties and pay the backwages, but
respondent no.1 has not permitted the petitioner to resume
duties, nor paid the backwages. The petitioner made an
application to respondent no.2 to prosecute respondent no.1
under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, but no action
worth the name has been taken by the respondent no.2 at all.
The effort made by the petitioner to get executed the award
of the Central Industrial Tribunal through Central
Administrative Tribunal has also failed. All his efforts have
proved futile. Hence the present petition seeking mandamus
to comply with the award of the Central Industrial Tribunal
is filed.
C/SCA/2804/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2022
10. The award passed by the Industrial Tribunal has become
final and under the award, a legal right is conferred on the
petitioner to be reinstated in service with benefit of 60% of
backwages and a corresponding obligation is imposed on the
respondents to take steps to implement the award. Once the
award passed by the Tribunal acquired finality, it was the
bounden duty of the respondent no.1, to not only act in
accordance with the award and fulfil his obligation under the
award, but also to take all necessary steps to translate the
award into reality. As pointed out earlier, respondent no.1
has not cared to file any affidavit-in-reply to the present
petition. Total absence of justification for not implementing
the award justifies the conclusion that respondent no.1 has
failed to carry out his duty, resulting into clear infringement
of legal right of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has a
right to seek a writ of mandamus against respondent no.1."
6. Perusal of the awards would indicate that they are of the year 2019.
The respondents on a challenge made to these awards failed inasmuch as
the petitions being Special Civil Application No. 1534 of 2021 and allied
petitions were dismissed by an order dated 20.10.2021.
7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are
directed to implement the awards in question within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of writ of the order of this court. Rule is made
absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
DIVYA
