SCA/9483/1995 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9483 of 1995 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10871 of 1995 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI ================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================= GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LTD - Petitioner(s) Versus GENERAL LABOUR ORGINISATION - Respondent(s) ================================================= Appearance : NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR DS VASAVADA for Respondent(s) : 1, ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date : 13/05/2008 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) Both these petitions have been filed challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal in SCA/9483/1995 2/4 JUDGMENT Reference (IT) No.242 of 1989 dated 12.07.1995. The Industrial Tribunal directed the company for removing the ceiling imposed on the dearness allowance and the benefit of dearness allowance without any ceiling was directed to be paid with effect from the date of award, viz. 12.07.1995. The rest of the demands raised by the union were rejected. 2. In view of this award the management, viz. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. has challenged the award by filing Special Civil Application No.9483 of 1995. The General Labour Organisation also filed cross petition claiming, inter alia, the benefit of dearness allowance from the retrospective date and also claiming the benefits of pay scale and other demands. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Keyur Gandhi for the management and Mr.D.S. Vasavda, learned advocate appearing on behalf of General Labour Organisation. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, both these petitions are disposed of in terms of the following directions. 4. Both these petitions were admitted by this Court. However, interim order was passed by the Court directing the management to pay 80% of the benefits of the impugned award subject to the condition that if ultimately management fails in the petition then the difference of 20% will be paid with interest at the rate of 15%. This interim order was passed by this Court on 01.11.1995. Against this interim order, the management preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No.5410 of 1997 arising from Special Leave Petition (C) No.23882 of 1996. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the matter on 11.08.1997 and directed the management to deposit the amount with the Registry of the High Court and the Registry of the High Court was directed to SCA/9483/1995 3/4 JUDGMENT disburse the amount on taking written undertaking from each workman, if he fails in the petition, then it will be refunded to the management. However, during pendency of the petition, the management introduced the VRS and as per the affidavit filed by Mr.Harish Pandya at Page 173, its has been stated in para 5 that the award covered 8 workmen and all 8 workmen have already obtained the voluntary retirement. It is also stated in the affidavit that there is a general clause in settlement, i.e. Clause 7 of settlement on page (184), stating that if the High Court in Special Civil Application No.9453 of 1995 with Special Civil Application No.10871 of 1995 passes or delivers the judgement in favour of the workmen then the workmen will be entitled to receive additional benefit over and above the benefit paid to each workman under VRS. The very settlement qua two workmen are produced at page 178 and relevant clause no.7 also appears on page 184. 5. It is also stated in the affidavit that, if the award is implemented from its date and the benefit of dearness allowance is granted at the rate of 100% instead of 80%, then 8 workmen whose names have been shown at page no.175 will get total amount of Rs.10 lacs. The management is disputing this figure and it is stated at the Bar that it is less than Rs.10 lacs. It is stated by Mr.Vasavada, on instructions, that the calculation made by the deponent is on tentative basis and without interest. 6. However, having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, we are of the considered opinion that the dispute is considerably narrowed down and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the parties to the proceedings, we feel it necessary to dispose of these matters by directing the management to pay, in all, Rs.6 lacs to 8 workmen, whose names have been mentioned on page 175 (internal page 3 of the affidavit of Mr.Shri H.D. Padiya), in full and final settlement of their claims. The amount of Rs.6 lacs shall be SCA/9483/1995 4/4 JUDGMENT paid to the eight workmen on pro-rata basis, i.e. considering the seniority from the date of joining till the date of their acceptance of VRS. The amount shall be paid by account payee cheque by the management to each workman. It has been submitted by Mr.Vasavada that out of 8 workmen, one Mr.Govindhbhai B. Patel, who is shown at serial no.7, at page 175, has expired on 29.08.1999. In the interest of justice, it is therefore, directed that the widow of late Mr.Govindbhai B. Patel (Mrs.Kailashben G. Patel as stated by Mr.D.S. Vasavada for the workmen) will be paid the pro-rata amount as legal heir of late G.B. Patel. The above directions shall be complied with within two months from today. 7. Both the petitions are disposed of in terms of the above directions. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. No order as to costs. Liberty to apply in case of difficulty. (M.S. SHAH, J.) (RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.) karim