AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J
By way of present petitions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have challenged the impugned awards passed by the Labour Court, Valsad in Recovery Application Nos. 101 of 2015, 107 of 2015, 99 of 2015, 125 of 2015 respectively whereby, the petitioners were directed to pay Rs. 80,560/- as well as Rs.3000/- as cost to the respondents respectively.
Heard Ms. Roshni Patel, learned AGP for the petitioners and Mr. P C Chaudhari, learned counsel for the respondent.
Ms. Patel, learned AGP for the petitioners has submitted that impugned awards passed by the Labour Court is erroneous, illegal, unjust, arbitrary to the facts and material on record and the provisions of the Act and therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside. She has submitted that the Labour Court has erred in reaching to the conclusion that the respondents were entitled to receive accrued amount for the duration of the period served by them. She has submitted that the Labour Court should have considered the fact that the respondents had been paid all the benefits due to them for the services rendered and that they are not entitled to receive any benefits under GR 15.09.2014 or GR 17.10.1988. She has submitted that the Labour Court has overreached its jurisdiction by granting the benefit of leave encashment and other benefits but there is no any provision for benefit of leave encashment to the daily wagers in the GR dated 17.10.1988 as well as the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 09.07.2013. She has submitted that the Labour Court appears to have overreached its jurisdiction by adjudicating the recovery applications under section 33C(2) of the said Act. She has submitted that the Labour Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) of the Act appears to have computed the amount pending of the respondents and accordingly awarded the same in the impugned awards. It is the case of the petitioner that this authority is not provided for and permissible under section 33C(2) of the Act and the same cannot be done by the Labour Court. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned AGP Ms. Patel has urged that the impugned judgment and awards passed by the Labour Court is required to be quashed and set aside and the present petitions are required to be allowed.
Though various grounds have been raised in the memo of petition, the fact remains that the total amount involved in the petition is only Rs. 80,560/-. Considering the smallness of amount, this Court deems it fit not to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the matter, only on the ground of smallness of amount with a further clarification that this may not be considered as precedent in other matters, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
If the amount is not deposited by the petitioner, the same shall be deposited within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of order of this Court. Once the amount is deposited, the same shall be disbursed in favour of the respondents, after verifying the bank details and after following due procedure, through RTGS/NEFT.