G E B Vs. HITENDRA CHHITUBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Majmudar for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Clerk for respondent No.1. Notice of rule issued by this Court has been served upon the respondent No.2 but the respondent No. 2 has not remained present before this Court either in person or through any advocate. Therefore, the matter has been taken up for hearing in absence of the respondent No.2.

(2.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the labour court concerned below Exh. 49 dated 29.3.2001 wherein the labour court has rejected the prayer made by the petitioner Board to stay further proceedings of the reference on the ground of pendency of cognate matter being special civil application no. 5644 of 1997 before this Court wherein recovery orders passed by the labour court have been stayed by this court.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar has submitted that the present respondent workman was working in the Gram Panchayat and he was not employed by the petitioner Board; he was engaged by the Gram Panchayat and has also been paid by the Gram Panchayat. According to him, the petitioner Board has only limited role in the present case to provide the Transformer to the Panchayat and, thereafter, internal arrangement of connection etc. is required to be carried out by the Gram Panchayat. He has submitted that some assistance is being provided by the petitioner Board to the Gram Panchayat. He has submitted that the respondent workman has filed recovery application no. 605 of 1994 against the Board claiming regular salary which was paid to the Helper of the Gujarat Electricity Board and that has been allowed by the labour court concerned on 11/06/1997. He has submitted that the said order dated 11/06/1997 has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing aforesaid petition and this Court (Coram : M.R.Calla,J.) has passed order on 12/08/1997 and has issued rule returnable on 1/09/1997 and meanwhile, operation of the order passed in the recovery application by the labour court has been stayed by this Court. In view of these facts, learned advocate Mr. Majmudar has submitted that the very question has been examined by the labour court once in the recovery application and has come to the conclusion that the respondent workman was the employee of the petitioner Board and on that basis, recovery application has been allowed and, therefore, the labour court ought to have stayed the further proceedings in the reference and for that, initially, the petitioner Board had filed application at Exh.44 which was rejected by the labour court in view of the fact that the petitioner Board had not produced copy of this order and the copy of the memo of aforesaid petition. Thereafter, second application at Exh. 49 was filed by the petitioner board before the labour court on 29/03/2001 page 20 of the petition. He submitted that the said application was examined by the labour court as a preliminary issue and ultimately, the labour court has rejected the said application with cost of Rs. 500.00 and, therefore, learned advocate Mr. Majmudar has submitted that the prayer made by the petitioner before the labour court for stay of proceedings of the reference was reasonable and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings between the parties, said application ought to have been allowed by the labour court. According to him, in view of the pendency of the aforesaid petition before this Court, the labour court ought to have waited till the aforesaid petition is finally heard and decided by this Court. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, he has submitted that the order of the labour court is erroneous and liable to be set aside.