SCA/9107/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9107 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9108 of 2008 To SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9110 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT THRO. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE - Petitioner Versus PITAMBARBHAI HARIBHAI C/O. G D KALADIA & 3 - Respondents ========================================================= Appearance : MR KRUNAL PANDYA AGP for Petitioner: 1, MR MUKESH H RATHOD for Respondent : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent: 2 - 4. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 19/12/2008 SCA/9107/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith. 2. This Court on 10.12.2008 passed the following order: “Shri Rathod, learned counsel appearing for the respondent workmen in all the petitions, under instructions of respective respondent workman, has very fairly submitted before this Court that they have no objection in case the ex-parte award is set aside and matters are remanded back for decision on merits but, in the meantime and till the Labour Court decides the Reference on its own merits within stipulated period that may be fixed by the Court, let each workman respondent be reemployed on any post and place either liking of the petitioner and such reemployment or re-engagement shall not create any equities in favour of either parties, but at least this will help the workmen to sustain themselves and the family members for the time Award is decided afresh on merits within stipulated time. Shri Pandya, learned AGP needs sometime to ascertain whether there is any possibility of re-engagement of these workmen without prejudice to rights and contentions as the concession of Shri Rathod would certainly work as an added factor to the petitioner as in the present petitions, the entire period of delay condonation, which has remained unexplained as per the order of the Court, in fact, which is being a real impediment. Even impugned award, which has not been challenged in this petition, will also have to be quashed and set aside on the concession of Shri Rathod and therefore, the Government would have not been any objection for SCA/9107/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT accepting such a proposal. However, request of Shri Patel is accepted and matter is adjourned to 15.12.2008 with a specific observation that no further time shall be granted and if no instructions, in any way, is coming forward, then the matter shall be decided finally on that day. The Registry is directed to place the copy of this order in each matter.” 3. Once again, as no specific instructions were received by learned AGP, an opportunity was granted for ascertaining about the concession offered by Mr. Rathod under the instructions of his clients. 4. Today, learned AGP Mr. Pandya, has placed on record, the appropriate order passed by the State on 17/18.12.2008, wherein, it appears that State has agreed to pay the amount equivalent to minimum wages to the concerned workmen namely 4 workmen during the pendency of the Reference if the Court is setting aside the ex-parte award. 5. In view of the aforesaid, Mr. Rathod, submits under instructions that there shall be no objection if the ex-parte award dated 29.1.2005 passed in Reference (LCS) No.144 of 2000 is quashed and set aside and matters are remanded back to the Labour Court. SCA/9107/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT 6. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Labour Court for decision on merits. The order dated 29.1.2005 passed in Reference (LCS) No. 144 of 2000 and order dated 31.1.2008 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 17 of 2007 are hereby quashed and set aside on a condition that the respondents workmen be paid the amount equivalent to minimum wages from December, 2008 i.e minimum wages from the month of December, 2008 and onwards till the Reference is disposed of by the Labour Court. The Labour Court is directed to decide the Reference within 5 months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. Both the counsel have assured this Court that parties will cooperate in the Reference before the Labour Court. It is clarified that as this order is passed on a specific concession accorded by counsel for the respondent, it shall never be treated as a precedent in any of the matter and is not binding to the State in any other case 7. With these observations, the petitions are disposed of. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. Office is directed to keep the copy of this order in each matter. (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) pallav