High CourtsSingle Bench(2001) 06 GUJ CK 0076

Rajkot Municipal Corporation vs Bharatkumar Amrutlal Raval (Decd) through Legal Heirs

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 21 June 2001

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.R. Tripathi, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Special Civil Application No. 6270 of 2000

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 336 words

Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—This Special Civil Application is filed by Rajkot Municipal Corporation against the award dated 23rd February, 2000 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot, in Recovery Application No. 1266/1987. As is clear from the perusal of the award that the application was filed by the respondent-workman, (who is now deceased and represented through his son, who is served, but, nobody is present) for salary, daily allowance, special allowance, leave pay, etc. It is the case of the respondent-workman that he was serving as a Daily Wager Driver with the petitioner-Corporation and he was getting Rs. 22=35 ps. per day. He was working at Bhadar Yojna and also for scarcity work round the clock. The case of the respondent-workman is that other daily wagers - adhoc employees were getting Rs. 2000/- per month towards overtime and towards allowance for working on Bhadar Scheme. Except bare statement made in the application, no material is placed before the Court in support of the said claim.

2.

The learned Judge has rejected the application of the respondent-workman so far as daily allowance, special allowance and leave pay are concerned. So far as overtime is concerned, only on the ground that the petitioner-Corporation did not produce the Log-Book before the Court, the learned Judge has passed an order to pay a sum of Rs. 15,019=20 ps. 3. Mr. Clerk, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner-Corporation, submitted that the proceedings u/s 33(C)(2) are in the nature of Execution Application and before any Execution Application could be entertained by the Court, there has to be an adjudication of the rights of the respondent-workman. In the present case, there being no adjudication of the rights of the respondent-workman, there is no question of any Execution Application being entertained by the Court.

4.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is required to be allowed and the same is allowed. The order of the Labour Court is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.