MOHAMMEDBHAI ISMAILBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.I.A.Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner - workman, Mr.Rahul Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader for State Authorities and Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate for the Respondent Corporation the Employer.

(2.) CHALLENGE in this petition is made to the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad dated 14.05.2012 rejecting the demand of the petitioner of getting his dues as per proper pay -scale, being referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.

(3.) HAVING heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the material on record, the relevant facts asemerge are to the effect that the petitioner, who was a workman with the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, had raised certain demands which were adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No.782 of 1983 wherein certain benefits were directed to be given to the petitioner workman. The said award was subject the matter before this Court earlier, which is not the subject matter of this petition. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment dated 20.07.2004 recorded on Special Civil Application No.518 of 2001 and cognate matters, as well as the judgment dated 30.07.2010 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.166 of 2007. Ultimately Recovery Application was filed by the workman wherein it was projected by the employer that necessary orders are passed / being passed in favour of the workman and therefore the said Recovery Application was withdrawn on 23.02.2011. It is recorded that, in the withdrawal pursis specific reference was made by the petitioner that the employer has made proper pay fixation and even the opinion of the Accounts department, redressing the grievance of the petitioner was referred therein. On that basis, the Recovery Application was withdrawn on 23.02.2011. However, soon thereafter vide Note dated 22.03.2011 [Annexure -D to this petition] the earlier decision of granting higher grade scale to the petitioner, with retrospective effect, was recalled. On one hand, the recovery proceedings were successfully got aborted by showing the opinion dated 09.02.2011 and soon thereafter the said stand was recalled with which the petitioner is aggrieved. Whether the said action of the Corporation, which has resulted in reduction of pay and in turn pension, is legal or otherwise is an aspect which needs to be gone into by the appropriate forum. Therefore the petitioner moved labour machinery by raising appropriate demand. In conciliation proceedings, the stand of the respondent Corporation as reflected in its reply dated 05.01.2012, which is on record, was to the effect that, the note dated 09.02.2011, which recommended grant of higher grade scale to the petitioner, was erroneous, which is corrected by the Corporation. Thus, even going by the defence of the employer in the conciliation proceedings, on 09.02.2011 the workman was shown something, which led to withdrawal of recovery proceedings, which, in turn, led to withdrawal of the said foundation by the employer. In this fact situation, if the impugned order dated 14.05.2012 of the Appropriate Government is examined, it records that the demand in question is regulated by the award and therefore, reference need not be made.