Chanabhai Muljibhai and others vs Gujarat Housing Board

R.M. Doshit, J.—Heard the learned Advocate.

This Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from the common judgment and order dated 9.1.2006 passed by the learned

Single Judge in above Special Civil Application Nos. 4274 of 2.001 and 23962 of 2005 to 23979 of 2005.

The Appellants-workmen were the employees engaged by the Respondent - Gujarat Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as ''the Board'') for

maintenance of the residential houses constructed by the Board. In the year 1988, the residential units were transferred to the occupants rendering

the maintenance staff (the Appellants) surplus. The Appellants were, therefore, retrenched as contemplated by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). They were paid notice pay and retrenchment compensation.

Feeling aggrieved, the Appellants raised industrial dispute which came to be referred to the Labour Court, Bhavnagar and registered as

Reference (LCB) Nos. 502 of 1989 to 520 of 4989. The said References came to be allowed by the learned labour Court by its judgment and

order dated 25.7.2002. The learned Labour Judge was pleased to hold that the retrenchment of the Appellants was violative of Sections 25-F,

25-G and 25-H of the Act. The learned Labour Judge was pleased to direct the Board to reinstate the workmen in service and to pay them back

wages. For those workmen who had reached the age of superannuation, the Labour Court directed to pay back wages upto the date of

superannuation.

Feeling aggrieved, the Board preferred the above writ petitions before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has recorded that the

workmen were given notice pay and were paid retrenchment compensation as envisaged by Section 25-F of the Act. As to the compliance with

Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act, the learned Single Judge has observed that, ""there is nothing on record to show that juniors to the

Respondents were appointed in service by the Petitioner and therefore there is no violation of Section 25-G and H."" Accordingly, the learned

Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions and set aside the award passed by the Court below. Therefore, the present Appeal.

No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine.