Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 159 (GUJ)

ASHOKBHAI NARANDAS BUNDELA v. GENERAL MANAGER

2014-02-03

A.G.URAIZEE, K.S.JHAVERI

body2014
JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) By way of filing this appeal, the appellant – original petitioner has challenged the order dated 8th September 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.3316 of 2011 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 2 The appellant, who was working as Battery Operator with Raipur Manufacturing Company Limited was terminated from service and therefore he preferred T Recovery Application No.224 of 1997 before Labour Court, Ahmedabad. The Labour Court, Ahmedabad vide order dated 21st September 2001 granted the said application and ordered reinstatement of the appellant along with back wages. However, as Raipur Manufacturing Company Limited went into liquidation on 15.10.2001 the appellant preferred OJ Civil Application No.34 of 2009 in Company Petition No.114 of 2001 and has also filed Recovery Application No.449 of 2007, which was allowed. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant was relegated to approach Industries Disputes Centre, Bachat Bhavan, but as the claim of the petitioner was declined, the petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition. 3 In the said writ petition, one Shri A.K. Chaphekar, Assistant Director, Regional Office of the Textile Commissioner, Ahmedabad, has filed reply affidavit wherein in paras 6, 7 and 8 the Textile Commissioner has observed as under: “6. I say and submit that after getting the second proforma-A, this office had written a letter to the General Manager, District Industries Centre on 29th July 2011 and mentioned that in earlier proforma-A the wages of the petitioner was mentioned as Rs.3708/and recently the second proforma-A which was only signed by the joint industries commissioner and general manager, DIC, Ahmedabad in which the entire facts are different, then it is requested to look into the matter. Annexed hereto and marked Annexure RIII to the affidavit in reply is a copy of the letter written by the deponent to the general manager, district industries centre dated 29th July 2011. Further it was also pointed out to the District Industries Centre, Ahmedabad vide this office letters dt 26/04/ 2011, 11/05/2011 and 14/06/2011 that as per the TWRF scheme guidelines in force, (point III (ii)(a) it is duty of the State Government designated authority to forward the proforma-A of the worker duly certified either from provident fund authority or official liquidator or board of trustees and duly certified by the state themselves. The proforma-A forwarded by office of the Industries Commissioner, Gandhinagar vide its letter no.IC/ Tex/ 147/ 530615 dt 11/04/2011 was not certified by all the designated authorities as mentioned in the scheme. 7. I say and submit that instead of giving reply to my letter dated 29th July 2011, the joint industries commissioner and the general manager has filed the reply before this honourable court on 8th August 2011. Not only that but in the entire reply affidavit it is not mentioned that I have asked to clarify the facts of the earlier proforma-A and present proforma-A. Therefore, the honourable court has passed the order on 12/08/2011 to explain the discrepancy between the two proformas. In this regard it is submitted that the concerned state government authority, I.e. DIC, Ahmedabad vide its letter no.DIC/ AHD/ TEXTILE/ TWRF dt 20/12/2006 forwarded the prescribed proforma-A indicating separately the list of eligible and ineligible workers. The details of the applicant was mentioned under Sr.no.718 of the ineligible list with the following particulars. Sr. no. P.F. No. Full name of worker Date of birth Date of superannuation Date of joining Eligible wages 718 5815 Ashokbhai Narayan 20.04.56 07/03/2004 02/1/78 3708 The said Proforma-A was duly signed by Joint Industries Commissioner & General Manager, DIC, Ahmedabad and deputy Official Liquidator, which as mentioned above is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-RII. The specific reason for not considering the petitioner worker under TWRF scheme was that the wage limit of Rs.3500/was exceeded as per the above details in the Proforma-A forwarded by DIC, Ahmedabad. Subsequently Industries Commissioner, Gandhinagar vide its letter no.IC/Tex/147/530615 dt 11.04.2011 forwarded the Proforma-A of this particular worker Shri Ashok Narayan Bundela with the following particulars: Sr. no. P.F. No. Full name of worker Date of birth Date of superannuation Date of joining Eligible wages Amount to be paid 1. 5815 Ashokbhai Narayan 20.04.1956 07/03/2004 02/1/78 3708 41148 The said Proforma-A was only signed by Joint Industries Commissioner & general manager, DIC, Ahmedabad and though the designation of Deputy Official Liquidator, High Court of Gujarat was mentioned in the Proforma-A the same was not signed by him or by official liquidator as is required as per the TWRFS guidelines. 5815 Ashokbhai Narayan 20.04.1956 07/03/2004 02/1/78 3708 41148 The said Proforma-A was only signed by Joint Industries Commissioner & general manager, DIC, Ahmedabad and though the designation of Deputy Official Liquidator, High Court of Gujarat was mentioned in the Proforma-A the same was not signed by him or by official liquidator as is required as per the TWRFS guidelines. Since all the particulars such as date of birth, date of superannuation, date of joining & eligible wages as were mentioned in this second Proforma-A forwarded by State Government vide its letter no.DIC/ AHD/ TEXTILE/ TWRF/ dt 20.12.2006, my office vide its letter dt 29.07.2011 sought specific clarification from DIC, Ahmedabad about this. My office has not received the clarification on this till date. Further as mentioned earlier it was also pointed out to District Industries Centre, Ahmedabad vide this office letters dt 26/04/2011, 11/05/2011 and 14/06/2011 that as per the TWRF scheme guidelines in force, (Point III (ii)(a) it is duty of the State Government designated authority to forward the Proforma-A of the worker duly certified either from provident fund authority or official liquidator or board of trustees and duly certified by the state themselves. The Proforma-A forwarded by office of the Industries Commissioner, Gandhinagar vide its letter no.IC/ TEX/ 147/ 530615 dt 11/04/2011 was not certified by all of the designated authorities as mentioned in the scheme. Therefore, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly observe the glaring discrepancies in the proforma-A regarding some vital information of the worker including his wages and since the wages mentioned in the original proforma-A that was signed by all the authorities was exceeding the wage limit of Rs.3500/per month and was also included by the State Government designated authority, I.e. DIC, Ahmedabad under ineligible case, the question of considering this workers case for TWRFS payment does not arise. 8. I say and submit that the DIC, Ahmedabad has also not sought clarification from official liquidator as to how they have calculated wages of Rs.88 per day of the petitioner-workman in the Proforma-A forwarded vide its letter no.ic/Tex/ 147/530615 dt 11.04.2011. Because the Labour Court has awarded 4 years' salary to the petitioners in Reference No.224/ 1997 field by petitioner is Rs.4,21,000/, it means that the petitioner's pay should be above Rs.88 per day. The back wages for the period from 26/07/1997 to 21/09/2001 I.e. about 50 months. Because the Labour Court has awarded 4 years' salary to the petitioners in Reference No.224/ 1997 field by petitioner is Rs.4,21,000/, it means that the petitioner's pay should be above Rs.88 per day. The back wages for the period from 26/07/1997 to 21/09/2001 I.e. about 50 months. This would mean that he monthly wages will be over Rs.8000/. Since this exceeds the eligible monthly wages limit of upto Rs.3500/the petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit under the scheme. Therefore, the petition is required to be rejected.” The appellant – original petitioner has not disputed the aforesaid averments by filing rejoinder affidavit. Therefore, we find no error committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner in view of the aforesaid uncontroverted averments made by the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the learned Single Judge are just and proper and no interference is called for. The appeal is devoid of any merits. The same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.