SCA/3228/2007 1/8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3228 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: 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 ? ========================================================= DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, - Petitioner(s) Versus DHANJIBHAI T. KHARADI, - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS AVANI S MEHTA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR HASIT DILIP DAVE for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 10/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has taken out this petition against the order dated 17.11.2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in complaint / application No.664 of 2004 in reference (IT) No.37 of 2000 whereby, the learned tribunal rejected the approval application filed by the SCA/3228/2007 2/8 JUDGMENT petitioner seeking approval of its action of terminating present respondent. As a result of the impugned order, the petitioner's action of terminating the respondent was not approved and consequently, the termination order was rendered ineffective and inoperative. Aggrieved by the said order dated 17.11.2006, present petition came to be preferred and the court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.K.Rathod) was pleased to issue notice vide order dated 26.3.2007. Since then, there have been certain developments in the petition. It appears that the petitioner as well as the respondent were willing to arrive at some amicable and mutually agreeable settlement. As a step towards said goal, the respondent herein offered to accept voluntary retirement by way of final settlement. Subsequently, after some delebrations, the petitioner corporation agreed, in principal, to accept the offer / suggestion by the respondent and then it also agreed to offer voluntary retirement to the SCA/3228/2007 3/8 JUDGMENT respondent from the date on which the respondent was originally terminated. This development was in pursuance of and in light of the directions issued by the court vide order dated 27.11.2007. As a net result of the aforesaid developments, the petitioner corporation agreed to convert the respondent's termination into voluntary retirement with effect from the date of his termination i.e. 6th October, 2004. It has now come on record and the decision of the petitioner corporation is placed on record, by communication dated 4.10.2007, and copy thereof is made available to the respondent as well. The respondent herein has accepted the said decision of the petitioner corporation. However, he was anxious to know the extent of quantum of the benefits, which would become available to him upon finalization of the settlement. Thus, the same was inquired from the corporation and the respondent herein also addressed a letter dated 12.5.2008 to the petitioner corporation requesting for clarifications as regards the issues raised by him in the said communication. In response to the said communication by the SCA/3228/2007 4/8 JUDGMENT respondent, the petitioner corporation has now come out with its reply dated 23.6.2008 clarifying, inter alia, that upon dismissal being converted into VRS the respondent would get lump sum amount of Rs.2,14,215/- and he would be entitled for pension as well. The said clarification satisfies the anxiety of the respondent, however, he seeks clarification that if as per the rules and regulations of the petitioner corporation, any other or further amount, besides the said amount of Rs.2,14,215/-, is payable to him, then, the same may also be paid to him along with the said amount of Rs.2,14,215/-. He seeks such clarification because as per his understanding there is some error in calculating the said benefit / amount. Ms. Mehta for the petitioner corporation states that as such, no other amount beyond the said amount would be payable, however, she would instruct the concerned officer of the corporation to look into the said aspect and if any other amount is or may be payable, then, the needful will be done in that regard and the shortfall will be made good. It is, SCA/3228/2007 5/8 JUDGMENT however, understood, agreed and settled that no dispute on this count will be raised by the respondent. In view of the aforesaid agreement between the parties, the present petition is disposed of with below mentioned observations and directions. (i) The termination of the respondent herein shall stand converted into voluntary retirement with effect from 6.10.2004. (ii) The respondent will be entitled for benefits of pension as per the rules and regulations of the petitioner corporation. (iii) The petitioner corporation shall make payment, subject to correction of any error in calculating payable amount, as a lump sum and one time payment, of Rs.2,14,215/- towards the full and final settlement of all claims of the respondent (except aforesaid clarification). SCA/3228/2007 6/8 JUDGMENT (iv) The petitioner corporation shall pass an order converting the dismissal into voluntary retirement within a period of two weeks from today. Upon such order being passed, the impugned order dated 17.11.2006 shall stand set aside and the complaint / application filed by the respondent herein i.e. complaint / application (IT) No.664 of 2004 shall stand withdrawn and shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. (v) The petitioner corporation shall, considering that the respondent is out of employment since 2004, endeavor to make the payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,14,215/- as early as possible and if it intends, considering its present financial difficulties, to make the payment of the said amount in installments then, the first installment to be paid to the respondent on or before 30th August, 2008, the balance amount to be cleared on or before 31st December, 2008. SCA/3228/2007 7/8 JUDGMENT (vi) So far as payment towards backwages is concerned, the concerned officer shall forward the papers to the competent authority within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Petition stands disposed of. Notice discharged. [K.M.Thaker, J.] 14 th July, 2008. After the judgment was dictated, but before it could be signed, Mr. Dave, by referring to the order passed by the authority made a grievance about the date of termination and effective date for granting payment mentioned in the order. He requested that he and the opponent may be heard on that count. Hence, this Court agreed to defer signature on the judgment. Today, on behalf of Ms. Mehta it is requested that the judgment may not be signed till 18th July, 2008 since necessary instructions could not be SCA/3228/2007 8/8 JUDGMENT obtained because the concerned officer is on leave. Thus, the judgment would be signed on 18th July, 2008 after Ms. Mehta clarifies the position. [K.M.Thaker, J.] 18 th July, 2008. Ms. Mehta has submitted that the effect of the order is explained to Mr. Dave and the apprehension expressed by the respondent is unwarranted. Mr. Dave states that his client has some reservation however, the clarification made in the order regarding correction of error would take care of difficulties, if any. The parties, thus, agree that the order may be passed. [K.M.Thaker, J.] kdc