LPA/2260/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2260 of 2007 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4274 of 2001 With LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2261 of 2007 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 23962 of 2005 To LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2271 of 2007 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 23979 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 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 civil judge ? ========================================================= CHANABHAI MULJIBHAI & 11 - Appellant(s) Versus GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR TR MISHRA for Appellant(s) : 1 - 12.MR UT MISHRA for Appellant(s) : 1 - 12. None for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT and LPA/2260/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 14/11/2008 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT) Heard the learned advocate. This Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from the common judgment and order dated 9th January, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in above Special Civil Application Nos.4274 of 2001 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. LPA/2260/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT 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 1989. The said References came to be allowed by the learned labour court by its judgment and order dated 25th July, 2002. The learned Labour Judge was pleased to hold that the retrenchment of the appellants was violative of sections 25F, 25G and 25H 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 25F of the Act. As to the compliance with sections 25G and 25H of the Act, the learned Single Judge has observed that, “there is nothing on record to show that juniors to LPA/2260/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT the respondents were appointed in service by the petitioner and therefore there is no violation of section 25G 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. (Ms. R.M.Doshit, J.) (K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc