STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JIVABHAI ISABBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned AGP Mr. Dabhi for the State of Gujarat and Mr. A.K. Clerk, learned Advocate for the workmen. By filing special civil application no. 1041 of 1997, the petitioner State of Gujarat has challenged the order of the Labour Court, Rajkot in Recovery Application No. 1600 of 1986 dated 15th June, 1995 wherein the labour court has directed the petitioner to make payment of 496 weekly off from 1.9.1976 to 31.3.1986 at the double rate based on the minimum wage rate of the respective years to the workmen concerned within thirty days from the date of receipt of the said order. In Special Civil Application No.4284 of 2000 filed by the petitioners workmen, order of the labour court dated 18.1.2000 passed by the labour court, Rajkot in application dated 18.1.2000 in Recovery Application No. 1600 of 1986 wherein the prayer was made by the workmen for disbursement of the amount deposited by the State of Gujarat and the said prayer was rejected by the labour court on the ground of pendency of Special Civil Application No. 1041 of 1997.

(2.) In Special Civil Application No. 1041 of 1997 filed by the State of Gujarat, initially, rule was issued by this Court and notice as to interim relief was issued on 11th April, 1997 and on 23rd July, 1997, interim relief was refused by this Court.

(3.) During the course of hearing of these petitions, it was submitted by the learned AGP Mr. Dabhi for the State that the labour court has committed an error in entertaining the recovery application filed by 28 workmen under section 33-C-2 of the ID Act,1947. He submits that it ought to have been appreciated by the labour court that there was no previous adjudication about the rights of the workmen concerned between the parties and, therefore, the labour court ought to have refrained it from entertaining the said application. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the decision reported in 1988 (3) SCC 457, 1998 (2) GLR 984, 1997 (3) GLR 195. He also submits that only one workman was examined before the labour court at Exh. 12 who was not having personal knowledge or detail in respect of the claim of the other 27 workmen, therefore, labour court has erred in granting benefits in favour of all the workmen by considering the deposition of one workman. He also submits that as and when the work was taken from the workman on weekly off by the petitioner, OT Wages were being paid by the petitioner to the concerned workmen and, therefore, the labour court has committed gross error in granting relief in favour of the workmen. Except that, no other contention was raised by the learned AGP Mr. Dabhi before this Court. No other decisions were cited by the learned AGP Mr. Dabhi before this Court except the decisions referred to above. Relevant portion of the order made by the labour court was read over by Mr. Dabhi before this Court.