SCA/1063319/1994 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10633 of 1994 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 - Petitioner Versus DM VANZARA - Respondent ============================================= Appearance : MS. V.S. PATHAK, LD. AGP for Petitioner : MR RC JANI for Respondent : ============================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 10/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsels for the petitioner. 1. The petitioner – State of Gujarat has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad on SCA/1063319/1994 2/4 JUDGMENT 24/7/1992 in Recovery Application No. 1521 of 1989 awarding an amount of Rs.23,772/- and Rs.500/- towards cost as amount for payment of over time work. 2. The facts in brief deserved to be stated as under. The respondent was working as watchman from 22/10/1982 to 31/3/1989 for 12 hours per day and thus he had to work for more hours in addition to the working hours. Thus the workman claimed that he was entitled to receive Rs.1000/- per month in addition to his regular pay for 72 months, and in all he has claimed Rs.83,396/- 3. The contention was taken that the respondent was not a workman as he was governed by the Bombay Civil Service Rules (BCSR) and as there are statutory rules framed the Industrial Disputes Act would not be applicable. The concerned Labour Court has partly allowed the Recovery Application and awarded Rs.23,772/- towards over time work. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order & award the State has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned AGP Ms. Pathak has contended that in light of the judgment of the Apex Court now it hardly requires to be elaborately submitted that the case in question would not be governed by Industrial Dispute Act. The Labour Court ought not to have ignored the relevant provisions of law governing the employment of workman- respondent. Moreover assuming for the sake of SCA/1063319/1994 3/4 JUDGMENT submitting that the Industrial Dispute Act could have been invoked, then also there ought to have been full- fledged hearing, wherein the evidences were required to be taken. The recovery proceedings are summary proceedings in nature and only legal dues and admissible claims are granted and paid there under. 5. Shri Jani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent workman submitted that the I.D. Act is applicable and the recovery application was maintainable. However, to the precise query of the Court in respect of the rules governing the service conditions of the respondent workman being watchmen in the State service apart from BCSR, there was no reply. 6. This Court is unable to accept the submission of Shri Jani as in the first instance recovery application itself was not maintainable in view of the fact that the State and its employees are governed by the specific rules & regulations. In this case BCSR were applicable and therefore, in absence of any cogent evidence even at this stage under Article 227 of the Constitution to indicate that the workman was not governed by those rules, it would not be appropriate to upheld and sustain the decision of the Labour Court. The decision of the Labour Court otherwise is also not tenable in eye of law as it can be seen that the claim of the workman with regard to receiving the over time benefit has not been crystallized and in absence of any proper adjudication on cogent evidence the same ought not to have been even partly allowed. The petition therefore deserves to be allowed SCA/1063319/1994 4/4 JUDGMENT and is accordingly allowed. The order impugned dated 24/7/1992 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute. Interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated. 7. It appears that, there was an order passed by this Court [Coram: Susanta Chatterji, J (as he then was] on 30/11/1994 where under the petitioner was directed to deposit 25 % of the awarded amount, which was permitted to be withdrawn by the workman on his furnishing appropriate security. However both the counsels are unable to indicate to the Court whether the amount was deposited or the same was withdrawn. Be that as it may; as the matter is dismissed parties are at liberty to take appropriate course of action in this regard. [ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn