Maheshbhai P. Prajapati vs P.M. Patel

S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—Heard learned advocate for the applicant. Rule. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the Respondent waives services of notice of rule. With the consent of the advocates for the parties, this application is heard finally.

The applicant, who is Respondent in Special Civil Application No. 8182 of 2005 has preferred this application for seeking appropriate direction, as the order passed by this Court on 9/9/2009 in Civil Application No. 7775 of 2009 in Special Civil Application No. 8182 of 2005 had not been complied with in its totality.

The employer / Respondent herein above preferred Special Civil Application No. 8182 of 2005 challenging the award dated 29/1/2005 passed by the Labour Court, Palanpur. Whereas Special Civil Application No. 14274 of 2005 is preferred by the workman / present applicant challenging the award in so far as it did not grant him backwages. Both these petitions have been admitted. Interim order originally passed on 6/5/2005 in Special Civil Application No. 8182 of 2005 staying implementation of the impugned award came to be modified vide order dated 31/8/2005 passed by this Court (Coram: Akil Kureshi, J), modifying to the effect that, there was stay only against continuance of service granted by the Labour Court. However, workman was to be reinstated in service during pendency of the petition, subject to final outcome of the petition.

The workman thereafter filed Civil Application No. 7775 of 2009 for seeking appropriate direction which came to be disposed of by this Court (Coram: S.R. Brahmbhatt, J) by order dated 9/9/2009, holding that the workman would not be entitled to increments as his prayer for increments have already been declined by this Court (Coram: H.K. Rathod, J) vide order dated 11/4/2008 in Civil Application No. 4250 of 2005 in Special Civil Application No. 8182 of 2005. However as the reinstatement was ordered specifically, this Court directed that workman should be entitled to receive wages which are equivalent to minimum of the pay scale admissible to the post in question.

The controversy was raised on behalf of the employer that the workman had never been employed on regular basis and there exist no post which could be taken into consideration so far as Banaskantha District Panchayat is concerned.

As against this, Shri Chinmay Gandhi, learned advocate for the workman contended that the workman had in fact been given minimum of 4th Pay Commission pay scale and 5th Pay Commission pay scale also, and when this application is being filed and agitated, the workman is in fact been given minimum of 5th Pay Commission i.e. Rs. 2550/-(in pay scale of Rs/-2550-3200), though he has not given increments and scale on that basis. However now the 6th Pay Commission has also come into existence and the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission have been implemented and wages in accordance there with had already been paid to the concerned employees. Therefore, corresponding wages should have been given to the workman. Now, as per submission of Shri. Gandhi, pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 is revised to Rs. 4440-7440 and therefore Rs. 4440/-being the minimum of that pay scale, same should be admissible to the workman, as it is mentioned on page-36 of compilation at Item No. 43.

In view of this, Shri Munshaw submits that this Court may pass appropriate order, but in case this Court is inclined to accept this application granting wages equivalent to minimum pay-scale without any increments or any other emoluments in any manner, same shall be subject to final outcome of the petition which may be binding upon the parties.

In view of this, this civil application is disposed of with the following directions. The applicant workman shall be paid wages equivalent to the minimum of the pay scale of Electric Mazdoor mentioned on page-36 of the compilation. In other words applicant workman shall be paid monthly emoluments of Rs. 4,440/-+ admissible dearness allowance only, and the workman would not receive anything more than that as he has not been fixed in a stand of pay-scale concerned. This direction is of course subject to final outcome of the petition. However, in event of workman losing in the petition, the amount so paid will not be recovered. At the same time it is clarified that this direction is without prejudice to the rights & contentions of the parties to be taken up at the final stage with regard to the admissible pay-scale to the workman.

Request for interest on the arrears of difference of salary is rejected. But this Court is of the view that appropriate cost be given to the workman in lieu of interest. In view of this controversy the cost is quantified to Rs. 7,000/-.

The arrears to be worked out on the pay scale of Rs. 4,440/-+ dearness allowance, and be paid to the workman from 1/10/2009 within a period of four weeks from today, along with cost of Rs. 7,000/-. Direct service permitted.

Civil application is disposed of in above terms. Rule made absolute to the above said extent.