UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARJIBHAI K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. JC Sheth for the petitioner and Mr. YV Shah, learned advocate for the respondent workmen. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Recovery Application under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 23.11.1992 wherein the labour court has granted the recovery application in favour of the respondents workmen by quantifying the amount for their preexisting rights against the Western Railways. This petition was admitted by this court by issuing rule thereon by order dated 18.1.1993. While admitting this petition, this court has stayed the order passed in the recovery application no.5 of 1990 on condition that in case the petitioner loses in the petition and it is required to make payment of the amount as ordered by the labour court or any other amount as may be directed by this court, same shall be paid by the petitioner to the workmen with 12 per cent interest from the date of the said order. Thereafter, subsequently, contention was raised before this court that the Central Administrative Tribunal is having jurisdiction in such matters and not the High Court but after raising of such a contention, ultimately, learned advocate MR. Sheth has agreed before this court that this court is having jurisdiction to entertain the petition challenging the order or award made by the labour court being the central labour court. That contention was examined by this court on 13.12.1995.

(2.) During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Sheth that the labour court has committed gross error in granting recovery application in favour of the workmen and against the petitioner railways. He also submitted that none of the respondents herein had actually worked for over time before the petitioner and no over time work has ever been taken by the petitioner from the respondents and yet, the labour court has, without first deciding such preexisting right of the respondent granted benefit of over time in favour of the workmen. He also submitted that the labour court is having only execution jurisdiction and has no power and jurisdiction to examine fresh right in favour of the respondent workmen. He also submitted that when the written statement was filed by the petitioner before the labour court, said contention alongwith such other contentions were raised in the written arguments but no such contentions were considered by the labour court while passing the impugned order and, therefore, the orders made by the labour court are required to be quashed and set aside. Except these contentions, no other contentions have been raised by the learned advocate Mr. J.C. Sheth before this court.

(3.) On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. YV Shah appearing for the respondents workmen has submitted that after filing of the recovery application before the labour court, written statement to such recovery application was filed by the petitioner; thereafter, affidavits were filed by each workmen in support of their case but the petitioner has not challenged the contentions raised by the workmen in their affidavit by producing any evidence before the labour court and by cross examining the workmen before the labour court. No oral and documentary evidence has been produced by the petitioner before the labour court to oppose the claim of the respondent workmen. He also submitted that the advocates were engaged by the petitioner for representing its case before the labour court but ultimately nothing was produced before the labour court though various opportunities were granted by the labour court to the petitioner and, therefore, the labour court was justified in making the ex parte award against the petitioner on the basis of the material on record and, therefore, this court should not interfere with such an award after such a long period. He also submitted that in such circumstances, the labour court was having no option but to believe the contentions raised by the workmen which were supported by the affidavits of the workmen and not controverted by the petitioner by producing any rebuttal evidence. Therefore, he submitted that the labour court has, thus, not committed any error and, therefore, no interference is necessary.