BOTAD MUNICIPALITY Vs. BHIMJIBHAI RAMJIBHAI DHANDHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a Municipality constituted under the provisions of Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. This petitioner approached this Court through its Chief Officer challenging the validity and legality of the award dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) No.50 of 1996, whereby the Court had given the direction to the petitioner to give the difference in the pay scale from 20.07.1996 to 06.10.2009 to the respondent for his having held the additional charge of the Light Inspector, while continued to have worked as wireman. The respondent worked on a permanent post of a wireman in Botad Municipality. Person, who held the post of Light Inspector retired and,therefore, the respondent had been given the charge of the Light Inspector on 23.07.1996 and he continued to hold the said charge till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2013. After having worked for 2 years as a Light Inspector, while continuing to hold his own charge of a wireman, he had preferred a Reference(IT) No.50 of 1996, where oral evidence came to be adduced by the respondent. He was also cross-examined and the petitioner chose not to adduce any oral evidence. After availing the opportunities to the parties, the Court partially allowed the Reference and directed, as stated above.

(2.) This has aggrieved the petitioner Municipality which is before this Court seeking following reliefs:-

(3.) The affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondent employee, who has urged inter alia that he joined the service of Municipality since 1977 as a permanent wireman in the Light Department. There was permanent set up of two Wiremen. The respondent as well as another Wiremen viz. Shri Devayatbhai were the two permanent Wiremen and the respondent was the senior most wireman. There were about five daily waged wiremen and permanent set up of one Light Inspector. Upto 1994, Shri Batukray M. Devmurari was working as permanent Light Inspector and on attaining the age of superannuation, he was relieved from services in December, 1994. The respondent was given the charge of Light Inspector w.e.f. 30.11.1994 and he was also ordered to be paid the charge allowance w.e.f. 1.12.1994 vide Office Order issued by the petitioner Municipality dated 05.12.1994.