KAPIL CHAWLA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is made by the employer to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad in Complaint (IT) No.6 of 2014 in Reference (IT) No.17 of 2012, dated 19.12.2015. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has held that the action of the petitioner Municipality of discontinuing the service of the respondent No.1 with effect from 08.08.2014 was illegal, unreasonable, malafide and in breach of Sec. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequently, the Tribunal has directed that the respondent workman be reinstated in service with continuity. However back wages is denied to her.

(2.) Mr. Shirish Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner Municipality has submitted that, the respondent was not the workman, no procedure was followed at the time of her initial appointment and the scheme on which she was working, is discontinued resulting into discontinuance of her service and therefore the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with it. It is submitted that the petitioner Municipality did not commit any breach of the provision of Sec. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore the impugned award needs to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that this petition be entertained.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent workman has submitted that, the respondent was initially appointed by the Municipality on 26.03.2002 and subsequently she was confirmed vide order dated 27.10.2005. Pay fixation order was also passed by the Municipality on 27.10.2005. The Audit Authorities of the Government i.e. the Local Fund Department had also verified and approved the said Pay Fixation. It is submitted that, all these documents are on record of this petition, the same was on record before the Tribunal also and the same is taken into consideration by it. It is submitted that, on the face of this material, the say of the Municipality that the service of the respondent workman was duly discontinued could not have been accepted by the Tribunal which it has not and therefore this Court may not interfere. Mr.Mishra, learned advocate has further drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.21457 of 2005 dated 24.10.2005, the order of the Government of Gujarat in Urban Development and Urban Housing Department dated 01.06.2010 sanctioning the set up of the posts for the petitioner Municipality, more particularly the entry at serial No.9 of the said order and the consequential order passed by the Director of Municipalities, Gujarat State dated 23.11.2011. On the basis of this material, it is contended that, the discontinuance of service of the workman was illegal and mala fide. It is submitted that, the respondent workman was so treated by the Municipality for the reason that, the respondent had earlier approached this Court on more than one occasion with regard to her grievance about pay revision and the sexual harassment faced by her, which is not the subject matter of this petition. It is submitted that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the material placed before it and has found that the impugned action was illegal and mala fide. It is further submitted that, the glaring aspect of the matter is that, the dispute was pending with the Tribunal and there was stay by the Tribunal about maintaining status quo qua the service condition of the workman as on 27.12.2012 and in spite of that the petitioner Municipality had passed the order of discontinuance of service of the workman, which was in breach of the interim order of the Tribunal. It is submitted that, no interference be made by this Court. It is submitted that, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the impugned order was malafide be also not interfered with by this Court. In support of these submissions, Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent has relied on the following decisions. It is submitted that this petition be dismissed.