CHANDRASINH P RAULJI Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.11516 of 2012, whereby the learned Single Judge, for the reasons recorded in the order, has dismissed the petition.

(2.) We have heard Ms.Bhargavi Thakar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.Hardik Rawal, learned Counsel for respondent No.1. Mr.Paritosh Calla, learned Counsel has filed his appearance for respondent No.2, who is a formal party.

(3.) The short facts of the case are that the original petitioner - appellant was working as conductor in the respondent Corporation. While on duty, he met with an accident. As a result thereof, he had to undergo treatment and ultimately, the Civil Surgeon, as per the Certificate dated 24.4.2002, declared him unfit for the work of conductor and certified him as fit for the work of peon. Thereafter, as per the petitioner, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent to offer work of peon, but he was initially denied the work on the ground as to whether he could work on any other post or not and thereafter the post of peon was not available, etc. It is an admitted position that the petitioner, on account of the same was not taken on duty from 23.1.2002 to 30.5.2004. Thereafter, the respondent Authority took the petitioner on the post of peon from 5.6.2004. The original petitioner - appellant herein raised the dispute for non -offering of the work to him and the non -payment of salary for the period from 23.1.2002 to 30.5.2004. The said dispute came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication being Reference (IT) No.160/2005. The Tribunal ultimately did find that there was deprivation of the employment and financial loss to the petitioner from 23.1.2002 to 30.5.2004. But in the evidence at Exh. 15 in the deposition of the workman, it had not come on record that he made attempt to get the employment and the Tribunal also found that there was delay in filing the affidavit, therefore, the Tribunal found that the amount of Rs.20,000/ - as lump sum compensation would meet with the ends of justice. Accordingly, the Tribunal declared the action of the respondent for not offering the work on the post of peon from 23.1.2002 to 30.5.2004 as illegal and causing injustice, but towards the salary for the period from 23.1.2002 to 30.5.2004, the Tribunal ordered lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/ - and cost of Rs.1,000/ - by passing appropriate award. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said award preferred Special Civil Application No.11516 of 2012. The said petition came to be heard by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the award and dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner did not make any attempt to get the work any where else and the said reason recorded by the Tribunal was convincing and, therefore, different view was not called for. It is under these circumstances, the present appeal before us.