Dismissed

Municipal Commissioner, Vadodara Municipal Corporation v. Vishnubahi Ramchandra Kahar

Gujarat HC9 Dec 2020SCA/14944/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner Corporation challenged Labour Court award granting gas allowance to respondent driver. Court held award was reasoned and based on valid evidence; discretion not perverse nor unfair. Writ petition dismissed without interference.

What did the court decide?

The special civil application challenging the Labour Court award is dismissed and the award remains in force.

Municipal Commissioner, Vadodara Municipal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gujarat HC (2020)

¶1

C/SCA/14944/2020 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14944 of 2020

¶4

========================================================== MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶5

Versus

¶6

VISHNUBAHI RAMCHANDRA KAHAR

¶7

========================================================== Appearance:

¶8

MR NILESH A PANDYA(549) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶9

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

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

¶11

Date : 09/12/2020

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of challenging the legality and validity of the impugned award dated 23.1.2020 passed by learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No.4, Vadodara in Recovery Application (C-2) No.356 of 2002.

¶14

The background of the case is that the respondent workman who was working as a Driver with the petitioner Corporation filed Recovery Application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Vadodara for claiming Rs.100/- towards gas allowance mainly on the premise that he was also doing the duty of operating Fogging Machine and such, is entitled. The claim which has been submitted by the respondent workman was contested by the petitioner Corporation by submitting written statement at Exh.9 and totally denied the case of the respondent mainly on the premise that he was merely working as a Driver, not entitled to such claim of allowance. Ultimately, after hearing both the sides and after examining the entire record, learned Presiding Officer on the basis of the material on record, has come to the conclusion that the respondent workman is entitled to such gas allowances but not at

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

C/SCA/14944/2020 ORDER

¶17

the rate of Rs.100/- but at the rate of Rs.50/- per month and as such, partly allowed the recovery application by directing the petitioner Corporation to pay the same with effect from 1.1.1997 within a period of 60 days at the rate of 6% interest and cost of Rs.1500/- is awarded and it is this award which has been passed is made the subject matter of the present petition by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

¶18

Learned advocate Mr. Nilesh Pandya appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the respondent workman was merely working as a Driver and he has nothing to do with Fogging machine and its operation and was never discharging such duty and as such, is not entitled to receive any benefit. Apart from that, it has further been submitted that under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, learned Presiding Officer ought not to have allowed the application since the rights are not crystallized and by submitting this, has drawn the attention of the Court to relevant paragraphs of the impugned order and has submitted that the relief prayed for in the petition deserves to be considered. Additionally, Mr. Pandya has further submitted that there is delay in preferring the application for claiming old time allowance as the workman approached the Labour Court in 2000 for the cause which had occurred in 1995 and that being so, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. No other submissions have been made.

¶19

Having heard learned advocate Mr. Pandya for the petitioner and having gone through the order passed by learned Presiding Officer, it is quite apparent from the order in question that while passing the impugned order, learned Presiding Officer has given full opportunity to both the sides to lead evidence and place on record the material and on the basis of the material, which has been placed on record before him, a well reasoned order is passed, which

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

C/SCA/14944/2020 ORDER

¶22

in no circumstance can be construed as perverse or suffers from vice of non-application of mind. Apparent look at the order is reflecting proper application of mind and proper consideration of the material on record and as such, there appears to be no irregularity in exercising the discretion which is vested in learned Presiding Officer.

¶23

Additionally, while considering and examining the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Pandya, the order has clearly indicated that there was earlier reference with regard to the claim of gas allowances raised by several employees and the said reference after thorough adjudication came to be allowed, being Reference (IT) No.148 of 1988, and as such, the legitimate claim has already been adjudicated much before preferring this application and as such, it is ill-founded in the mouth of the Corporation to contend that there is no crystallized liability. In fact, from the material on record, it has been found that the present respondent workman has also on several occasions discharged the work on Fogging machine though he was a driver, because the Fogging machine was to be attached with a vehicle which is being run by the driver. After thorough analysis of the evidence on record, even learned Presiding Officer observed that simply because the salary is being adjusted from other department, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled to have allowances. Though the respondent was working as driver, but there was an evidence to the effect that salary and other allowances being paid from the Vehicle Pool of the Corporation and even after 1996, the respondent has also worked in Filaria Department of the Corporation. So, in past also, when the respondent workman had discharged the function and even subsequently this work is being undertaken, which is continued, there is hardly any justification in denying this petty claim to the employees who are sincerely discharging their services. It appears

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

C/SCA/14944/2020 ORDER

¶26

from the reading of the entire award that there is a clear finding arrived at by learned Presiding Officer with regard to legitimacy of the claim of the respondent and the balance order is passed by granting whatever made available to the other employees pursuant to the main reference, as indicated above and as such, when this order itself is reflecting a strong application of mind from every issue related to the claim of the respondent, this Court is not inclined to substitute any finding in place of learned Presiding Officer on the basis of very same material. Keeping in view the entire order into consideration, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction equitable in nature and as such, no case is made out by the petitioner.

¶27

Additionally, the Court while coming to the conclusion has also kept in mind the peripheral limits of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction as spelt out by catena of decisions of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1984 SC 38 and (2013)9 SCC 374. Considering the observations made in the said decisions of the Apex Court, no case appears to have been made out in which interference is called for. The workmen who are working and discharging the function for which there is no grievance, legitimate due benefits must be made available to them and that has rightly been done by learned Presiding Officer. So, in the background of this fact, the petition does not deserve to be entertained. However, while parting with this order, the Court has made it clear that in view of the present background of facts, the present order is passed. Hence, the petition stands DISMISSED .

¶28

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)

¶29

DHARMENDRA KUMAR

¶30

Page 4 of 4

Municipal Commissioner, Vadodara Municipal Corporation v. Vishnubahi Ramchandra Kahar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Commissioner, Vadodara Municipal Corporation v. Vishnubahi Ramchandra Kahar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abizar Hatimbhai Umrethwala Vs Union of India

Arun Prahaladbhai Thakor Vs State of Gujarat

Re Aliporiya Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat

Rajesh Prafulbhai Vyas Vs Shri Ishwarnagar Co. Op. Hou. Soc. Ltd.

Virendrakumar Pravinchandra Maheta Vs State of Gujarat

Kantaben Dhanabhai Ravat Vs State of Gujarat