Gujarat High Court
Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation vs Chandubhai Valjibhai Chauhanthru ... on 21 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17687/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17687 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Versus
CHANDUBHAI VALJIBHAI CHAUHANTHRU LEGAL HERIS SUNDARBEN
CHANDULAL CHAUHAN
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
KHUSHBU D CHHAYA(8093) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 21/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed challenging the award passed by the
learned labour court, Bhavnagar in Reference
Application No.40 of 2006 directing the present
petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.91,570/- at the rate of
8% towards the salary from 24.02.2005 to 31.03.2006.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the petitioner
was serving as a Peon in the Filter Department of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17687/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and entered into the
chamber of the Municipal Commissioner at 5.30 p.m. on
29.06.2000 alongwith other employees and brought out
the dead body of a dog from a jute bag and misbehaved
with the Municipal Commissioner. A note was put up by
the Municipal Commissioner with regard to the conduct
of the respondent, thereafter, the respondent was placed
under suspension vide order dated 29.06.2000 and has
been served with the chargesheet on 03.07.2000.
Concluding the full fledged departmental inquiry, the
report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer, proving the
charges leveled against the respondent on 10.09.2001
and thereafter, second show cause notice was issued on
the respondent on 20.10.2001. Thereafter, vide order
dated 08.01.2002, the service of the respondent was
dismissed by the petitioner employer. The said dismissal
order was challenged before the learned labour court,
Bhavnagar by filing the reference being Reference (LCB)
No.121 of 2002 which was awarded in favour of the
respondent by granting the relief of reinstatement with
continuity of service but without back wages as well as
with penalty of stoppage of five increments with future
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17687/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
effect.
2.1. Challenging the above order, the petition came to be
filed by the Corporation being Special Civil Application
no.22210 of 2005 which came to be withdrawn on
27.12.2005 by the Corporation. Thereafter, the order
was passed reinstating the respondent to his service on
31.03.2006 as the order passed by the learned reference
court dated 24.12.2005 was implemented on 31.03.2006,
therefore, recovery application came to be filed claiming
the salary for the period commencing from 16.04.2005
to 01.02.2006. Learned labour court has allowed the
application vide order dated 21.02.2018 directing the
petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.91,570/- with 8%
interest which is subject matter of challenge before this
Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the
petitioner and learned advocate Ms.Khushboo Chhaya
for the respondent.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that learned
labour court has committed an error in exercising the
jurisdiction under section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "ID
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17687/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
Act") by granting the amount of salary from the period
between when the award was passed and from when it
was implemented. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw
submits that though the claim made by the respondent
was disputed, without considering the submission made
and dealing with the contention raised, the impugned
order is passed directing the present petitioner to pay
the amount of salary and therefore, same is required to
be interfered with and the petition is required to be
allowed.
5. As against the same learned advocate Ms.Chhaya
submits that challenging the award passed by the
learned labour court directing the petitioner to reinstate
the respondent to his original post, petition which was
filed was withdrawn before this Court, therefore, the
learned labour court has rightly exercised its power
under section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act and directed the
present petitioner to pay the amount as claimed by the
present respondent and therefore, no interference is
required and the petition is required to be dismissed.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned
advocates for the respective parties and the reasons
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17687/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
assigned by the learned labour court while allowing the
application, it emerges that the reference which was
filed before the learned labour court challenging the
order of termination was held in favour of the present
respondent by granting the relief of reinstatement
without back wages and with continuity of service. The
award passed by the learned labour court dated
24.02.2005 was not implemented up to 31.03.2006. The
respondent has also filed a complaint for the breach of
award on 24.02.2006 and thereafter, the respondent was
reinstated to his original post on 01.04.2006. As the
wages which is required to be paid for the period
between when the award was passed and the actual
implementation, is not paid, therefore, by filing the
recovery application the amount of Rs.91,570/- was
claimed. From the reasons assigned by the learned
labour court, it emerges that there is no dispute with
regard to the amount claimed, however, the only
contention is that there is no preexisting right.
7. This Court is of the view that the preexisting right was
flaws from the award passed by the learned labour court
dated 24.02.2005, therefore, learned labour court has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17687/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
not committed an error in granting the salary for the
period commencing from 16.04.2005 to 01.02.2006 with
interest at the rate of 8%. As this Court did not find any
infirmity in the impugned order, in considered opinion of
this Court, this petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
