M/S.Indo German Tool Room vs Dinesh Chandulal Vasava
2023 Latest Caselaw 7985 Guj

                                                                                      NEUTRAL CITATION




    C/SCA/19645/2015                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/11/2023

                                                                                       undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19645 of 2015


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

==========================================================

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 ?

==========================================================
                           M/S.INDO GERMAN TOOL ROOM
                                      Versus
                       DINESH CHANDULAL VASAVA & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PC MASTER(446) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR BN DOCTOR(310) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JOY MATHEW(448) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

                                 Date : 01/11/2023
                                 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Joy Mathew

for the petitioner and learned advocate

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/19645/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/11/2023

undefined

Mr. U.T.Mishra for respondent No.1.

2. By this petition under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India, the petitioner

has prayed for the following reliefs:

"25.A. Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the Award passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal on 17/11/2014 in Reference No. CGITA No. 115/2007 and be pleased to declare that concerned trainee Shri Vasava was a Trainee and not a regular worker or workman of the petitioner.

B. Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the Order passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner on 25/05/2015.

C. Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief or reliefs as may be deem just and proper under circumstances of the case.

26.A. Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant interim relief staying further operation and execution of the award dated 17/11/2014 and order direction of Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) dated

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/19645/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/11/2023

undefined

25/05/2015 at Annexure A & B.

B. Any of the relief which the Hon'ble Court deem just and fit may be granted in the interest of justice."

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

3.1 The respondent was appointed as a

trainee-workman by Memorandum dated

17.08.1995 and thereafter, the petitioner

gave extension to the respondent by orders

dated 27.02.1996, 19.08.1996, 04.03.1997,

30.08.1997 and 07.12.1997.

3.2 According to the petitioner, on

completion of the training, the respondent

was automatically relieved as trainee.

3.3 The respondent being aggrieved,

preferred reference under the provisions

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/19645/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/11/2023

undefined

of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 ['ID

Act' for short] before the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad [CGIT] being Reference

No. 115/2007.

3.4 The CGIT, after taking oral and

documentary evidence, vide Judgement and

Award dated 27.08.2015 held that there is

a violation of the provisions of section

25F of the ID Act and directed the

petitioner to reinstate the respondent-

workman with 50% backwages from the date

of raising the dispute.

4. It is not in dispute that the

respondent-workman is reinstated by order

dated 17.11.2015. It is not in dispute

that by order dated 27.02.2015, the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/19645/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/11/2023

undefined

petitioner has complied with the Judgement

and Award passed by the CGIT by

reinstating the respondent as per the

terms and conditions of the training dated

17.08.1995.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Mathew submitted

that the respondent was never appointed as

a helper as sought to be canvassed before

the CGIT and he was relieved from the

service on completion of training. It was

submitted that it was a mistake on the

part of the petitioner that the training

period was continued even after the

completion of extended period of six

months as per the terms of Memorandum of

Appointment dated 17.08.1995. It was

submitted that the petitioner ought not to

have continued the respondent as a trainee

after 17.08.1996. It was submitted that

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/19645/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/11/2023

undefined

however, the petitioner has shown a grace

to the respondent to complete the

training. It is further pointed out that

the respondent has applied for the post of

helper with the petitioner-organization

even after the training was over in the

year 2000 and the reference was filed in

the year 2007, much after the respondent

was relieved in the year 1998 as trainee.

It was further submitted that the CGIT has

committed an error in allowing the

reference by relying upon the explanation

given by the respondent that he had

approached the Commission of Minority in

the year 2005 wherein, the petitioner has

filed reply and accordingly, dispute was

held to be a live dispute and delay was

not considered as an impediment for the

purpose of deciding the reference. It was

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/19645/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/11/2023

undefined

submitted that the CGIT ought not to have

entertained the reference on account of

delay.

6. On the other hand, learned advocate

Mr. Mishra submitted that the respondent-

workman has been reinstated on his

original post of trainee in the year 2015

and he is continuing as such with the

petitioner-organization but the petitioner

is paying him fixed pay of more than Rs.

23,000/- per month. It was submitted that

in view of the fact that the award was

already complied with in February,2015

whereas the petition is filed in November,

2015, the petition should not be

entertained to the prejudice of the

respondent-workman.

7. Considering the above submission, it

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/19645/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/11/2023

undefined

is not in dispute that the petitioner has

filed this petition after complying with

the impugned Judgement and Award and

therefore, without going into the merits

of the same, the petition is not

entertained as the Award which is

challenged in the petition has already

been complied with. The petition is

accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) JYOTI V. JANI