PRESIDENT Vs. VAGHELA BABUBHAI SAMABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner is the President of the Sanand Municipality and the respondent-workman appears was engaged by Sheth C.K. High School for cleaning of the school as sweeper. As per the petitioner Municipality, the expenses of the school are being maintained from the grant provided by the Government and as per the school record, the respondent was engaged as a part timer for one hour and he has being paid salary of Rs. 100/- per month. Whereas in the deposition of the correspondent, it has been stated that he was additionally paid the amount of Rs.50/ -- on the other voucher. It appears that no dispute under the Industrial disputes Act (hereinafter 'the Act') was raised, but the respondent-workman straightaway filed application under section 33-C(2) of the Act before the Labour court for recovery of the amount Rs. 3,66,624/-. The Labour Court issued notice the Municipality, but nobody appeared on behalf of the Municipality. The labour Court proceeded ex parte against the Municipality and upon the position of the respondent-workman, the Labour Court passed the order for suance of the Recovery Certificate of Rs. 3,66,624/- on 14.03.2000. It is under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court.

(2.) Heard Mr. K.V. Vyas for Mr. Jani for the petitioner and Mr. Rathod for correspondent.

(3.) It is true that the Labour Court proceeded ex parte on account of the fact that nobody defended on behalf of the Municipality. However, the pertinent aspect which was required to be taken into consideration by the Labour Court was as to whether there was any crystallised right created in favour of the workman or not. It is only after the right is crystallised by the order of the competent authority or forum, the recovery application may be maintainable.