IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 514 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? -------------------------------------------------------------- DY. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Versus N. P. SHIVRAJAN -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR PG DESAI, Govt. Advocate for Petitioner None present for Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE Date of decision: 09/07/97 ORAL JUDGMENT #. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. #. The petitioner, Deputy Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Fabrication Sub Division, Station Road, Vadodara, challenges by this Special Civil Application, the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (I.T.) No.233 of 1980 (New No.71 of 1984) dated 15th July 1987. #. An industrial dispute has been raised in respect of giving all benefits claimed therein to respondent herein, Shri N.B.Lingayat and Shri N.K.Upadhyaya. However, Reference in respect of Shri N.B.Lingayat and Shri N.K.Upadhyaya has been cancelled as they have let gone their claim and the dispute raised by respondent herein has been accepted and relief, prayed for, has been granted. It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed as a daily wager Welder Grade I from 1.3.73. From 22.2.84, he was given Welder Grade II. Though he made representation for giving him the Welder Grade I, it was not accepted and hence dispute has been raised which has been referred to the Industrial Tribunal. Though a claim has been made for giving him Welder Grade I from 1979, the same was not accepted. The respondent workman was given Welder's Grade II from 1984 and as such his claim has been accepted for Welder's Grade I from the date of giving him Grade II. There is evidence on record that the respondent-workman was doing work of Welder Grade I from 1973. Defence has been taken by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal that there was no post of Welder Grade I, but that was not accepted for want of any documentary evidence. So, on the basis of evidence which has been produced on record, the Industrial Tribunal has come to conclusion that the claim of respondent for giving him Welder's Grade I deserves acceptance. #. The Tribunal was correct to hold that the grievance of the respondent was of giving him Welder's Grade I from 1984 and not from 1979 and accordingly the claim has been accepted from the said date. The impugned Award has been passed after appreciating evidence and the learned counsel for the petitioner, despite making all efforts, is unable to make out any case of any error apparent on the face of the impugned Award of the Industrial Tribunal. Even if, on the basis of the evidence produced before the Labour Court of Industrial Tribunal, two views are possible, then sitting under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court should not interfere in the matter. However, as observed earlier, the petitioner, though had taken defence that there was no such post, is unable to establish the same. I do not find any perversity in the Award impugned in this Special Civil Application. #. In the result, this Special Civil Application fails and the same is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted by this Court, stands vacated. No order as to costs. ....... (sbl)