LPA/2321/2007 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2321 of 2007 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15926 of 2007 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15805 of 2007 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2321 of 2007 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15926 of 2007 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 the civil judge ? ========================================================= THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETCOMMITTEE - Appellant(s) Versus GUJ. RAJKIYA SEMI GOVERNMENT INDUSTERIAL EMPLOYEES UNION & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR VC VAGHELA for Appellant(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, MR GM JOSHI for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT and LPA/2321/2007 2/6 JUDGMENT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 07/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT) Heard the learned advocates. This Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 25th June, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in above Special Civil Application No.15926 of 2007. The appellant is the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Amreli [hereinafter referred to as “the Committee”]. According to the Committee, the age of superannuation of its employees is the date on which they complete 30 years of service or attain the age of 55 years, whichever be the earlier. The respondent, who was working as Supervisor, was retired from service in the year 1992 after he attained the age of 56 years. According to the workman, the age of superannuation is attainment of sixty years. He was LPA/2321/2007 3/6 JUDGMENT wrongly, with a malafide intention, retired early before he reached the age of superannuation. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent workman raised industrial dispute which came to be referred to the labour Court, Rajkot and registered as reference No.464 of 1992. Since then the said Reference was transferred to the labour Court, Bhavnagar and then to the labour Court, Amreli and was renumbered as Reference No.204 of 1998. The said reference was decided ex-parte on 3rd June, 1999. The action of the Committee in retiring the workman before he reached the age of 60 years was held to be bad. The Committee was directed to continue the workman in service and to treat the workman continued in service till he reached the age of 60 years and to pay him all monetary benefits. The challenge to the said order before this Court, in the Special Civil Application No.6710 of 1999 has failed since the said petition has been dismissed for non-prosecution. In view of the aforesaid order dated 3rd June, 1999, the workman raised another industrial dispute LPA/2321/2007 4/6 JUDGMENT in connection with his promotion as Secretary in the Committee. The said reference came to be referred to the labour Court, Amreli and registered as reference LCA (Demand) No.68 of 2001. The said reference also was not contested by the Committee. By order dated 14th July, 2006, the Committee was directed to promote the workman as Secretary with effect from 11th April, 1992 and to pay him difference in amount of salary and retiral benefits. The Miscellaneous Application No.2 of 2006 filed for restoration of the reference made by the Committee under Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules came to be rejected on 24th May, 2007. Feeling aggrieved, the Committee preferred above Special Civil Application No.15926 of 2007. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition. Therefore, the present Appeal. Mr. Vaghela has appeared for the Committee. He has submitted that according to the bye-laws of the Committee, the workman was required to be retired in the year 1990 on attaining the age of 55 years. LPA/2321/2007 5/6 JUDGMENT However, by specific order, his service was continued beyond the age of superannuation upto the date of actual retirement i.e. 11th April, 1992. Long after his retirement, the workman made the claim for promotion as Secretary which ought to have been rejected by the labour Court. Be it noted that before the labour Court the Committee had remained silent. Neither the earlier reference No.204 of 1998 nor the above referred reference LCA (Demand) No.68 of 2001 was contested by the Committee. The earlier award, though was challenged before this Court in above referred Special Civil Application No.6710 of 1999, the same was not prosecuted and was allowed to be dismissed for non-prosecution. In absence of defence put forth by the Committee, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly refused to interfere with the award made by the labour Court, more than 15 years after the date of the cause of action. In the circumstances, the appellant Committee is not entitled to indulgence by this Court. LPA/2321/2007 6/6 JUDGMENT Mr. Vaghela has submitted that in each reference, the Committee had engaged advocate, however, the advocate did not attend to the reference. Be that as it may, if at all the Committee has any claim, the Committee may proceed against the erring advocate. The Appeal is dismissed. Civil Application stands disposed of. (Ms. R.M.Doshit, J.) (K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc