Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 254 (GUJ)

Gujarat Electricity Board v. V. T. Mistry

2016-02-04

K.M.THAKER

body2016
JUDGMENT: K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Even after the order dated 27.01.2016, no one is present on behalf of the petitioner. Any request for pass over or adjournment is also not made. The cause list reflects that today also learned advocate for the petitioner has filed leave note. In this view of the matter, the Court has considered it appropriate to decide the matter after hearing the learned advocate for the respondent and after considering the material available on record. 2. Before proceeding further, it is appropriate and necessary to mention that the learned advocate for the respondent submitted that in view of the decision dated 27.11.2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1159 of 2014 and the decision dated 25.04.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2239 of 1995 and connected matters, wherein it is held that the Deputy Engineer and Executive Engineer in the petitioner-board do not come within the meaning of term Workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and in light of the fact that the said decision is confirmed and approved by the Hon'ble Division Bench and Special Leave Petition against the said decision is rejected by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the subject matter of present petition does not require further adjudication on merits and the matter can be disposed of in light of the said decision inasmuch as the provision related for age of superannuation applicable to the category of workman would not be available to the persons/officers in the category/cadre of Deputy Engineer and Executive Engineer and above. 3. In view of the said submission by learned advocate for the respondent, detail examination of the contentions raised in the petition or detail adjudication of the matter is not required. 4. 3. In view of the said submission by learned advocate for the respondent, detail examination of the contentions raised in the petition or detail adjudication of the matter is not required. 4. In present case, the petitioner-board is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 25.10.2002 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal at Nadiad in Reference (ITN) No. 523/98, whereby the learned Tribunal set aside the order passed by the petitioner-board reliving the respondent-Executive Engineer when he attained the age prescribed for superannuation i.e. 58 years and the learned Tribunal, after setting aside the said order passed by the petitioner-board, granted declaration that the respondent-Executive Engineer was entitled to continue in service until 60 years of age i.e. until 31.07.1997 and directed the petitioner-board to continue the respondent-Executive Engineer in service until 60 years of age or to pay wages for the said period. 5. In view of the fact that it is now finally adjudicated and settled the persons/officers in the cadre of Deputy Engineer and above, e.g. the Deputy Engineer, Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer etc. do not come within meaning of the terms Workman. It is also not in dispute that in the petitioner-board, the age for superannuation prescribed for persons/officers who are not in the category of workman i.e. for Non-workman is 58 years and only those persons who are in the category of workman and come within the purview of term Workman 60 years of age is prescribed as age for superannuation. 6. The grievance of the petitioner against the impugned award is required to be examined in light of the aforesaid position, as required age for superannuation. 7. The respondent herein raised an industrial dispute against the boards action/order relieving him from service when he completed 58 years of age on the ground that he had attained and completed the age prescribed for superannuation. 8. The petitioner-board took into account present respondents date of birth i.e. 23.07.1937 and applied the provision regarding age for superannuation applicable to the persons employed in the Non-workman category and relieved him from service with effect from 31.07.1995. 9. The respondent felt aggrieved by the said action and order of the petitioner board and raised an industrial dispute. 10. The appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal at Nadiad vide order of Reference dated 25.10.2002. The said reference was registered as Reference (ITN) No. 523/98. 11. 9. The respondent felt aggrieved by the said action and order of the petitioner board and raised an industrial dispute. 10. The appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal at Nadiad vide order of Reference dated 25.10.2002. The said reference was registered as Reference (ITN) No. 523/98. 11. In the proceedings, present respondent i.e. original claimant claimed that he joined the services with the petitioner-board with effect from 15.06.1962 as Technical Assistant, thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer with effect from 24.03.1972, and thereafter, he was again promoted to the post of Deputy Engineer with effect from 03.06.1974. The respondent-claimant also mentioned in his statement of claim that he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 15.11.1988. He also claimed that at the relevant time i.e. in July-1995, he was working with the petitioner-board as Executive Engineer. 12. He claimed that according to the rules and regulations applicable in the petitioner-board, the age for superannuation for the persons in the category of workman, was fixed at 60 years of age. 13. The respondent-claimant claimed that in view of the nature of duties performed by him and in view the power conferred on him, he would come within the purview of term Workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act, and therefore, he was entitled to continue in service until he completed 60 years of age, which was prescribed age for superannuation for persons in category Workman. He also prayed that the action of relieving him with effect from 31.07.1995 should be set aside and petitioner-board should be directed to continue him in service until 31.07.1997 and to declare that he is entitled to continue in service until 31.07.1997. 14. The said claim and the reference were opposed by present petitioner-board. The petitioner-board asserted that the respondent-claimant was employed in the category of Class-I Officer and he was working in managerial supervisory category and his salary was more than 1600/-, and that therefore, by any standard, the respondent-claimant cannot be considered workman. 14. The said claim and the reference were opposed by present petitioner-board. The petitioner-board asserted that the respondent-claimant was employed in the category of Class-I Officer and he was working in managerial supervisory category and his salary was more than 1600/-, and that therefore, by any standard, the respondent-claimant cannot be considered workman. The petitioner-board claimed and asserted before the learned Tribunal that the respondent/claimant was a person employed in and working in Non-workman" category and that therefore, the age for superannuation prescribed for the persons in the category of workman was not applicable to and available to the respondent-claimant but he would be governed by the rules, regulations and provisions applicable to the persons employed in non-workman category and that according to the applicable and prevailing regulations and provisions thereunder the age for superannuation prescribed for persons/officers in non-workman category is 58 years. With such reply and explanation, the petitioner-board justified its action and the order and opposed the claim of the respondent. 15. The contesting parties placed their respective evidence on record of the reference before the learned Tribunal. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal heard the submissions on behalf of the respondent-claimant and the petitioner-board and after considering the material on record, the learned Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the Executive Engineer employed in the petitioner-board would come within the purview of the term Workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. Having reached to such conclusion, the learned Industrial Tribunal passed the impugned award with aforesaid directions and declaration. Thus, the impugned directions are based on the conclusion that the respondent workman who was working as Executive Engineer comes within the purview of the term workman. 16. The petitioner-board is aggrieved by the said award. 17. It is claimed in the petition that the learned Tribunal committed error in holding that the respondent would come within the purview of definition of term Workman and consequently, he was entitled to continue in service until he completed 60 years of age and attained the age for superannuation prescribed for workman. It is claimed by petitioner-board in is petition that the respondent-claimant was working in the supervisory and managerial category and he was an officer in Class-I category and his salary was more than Rs. It is claimed by petitioner-board in is petition that the respondent-claimant was working in the supervisory and managerial category and he was an officer in Class-I category and his salary was more than Rs. 1600/- and that therefore, he would not come within the purview of definition of term Workman and consequently, he was not entitled to raise industrial dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and reference at the behest or on behalf of the respondent-claimant or in respect of the dispute related to the respondent was not maintainable. The petitioner-board has also claimed that since the respondent was employed in and was working in non-workman category, the age for superannuation applicable in his case would be 58 years, and therefore, the action of the petitioner-board cannot be said to be illegal. 18. As mentioned earlier, Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent submitted, at the outset, that in view of the decision by the Hon'ble Division Bench holding that the persons employed on the post of Deputy Engineer and above would not come within the meaning of term Workman, now in view of such pronouncement by the Court and the legal situation which has emerged in view of the said decision, it is not possible to support and justify the decision by the learned Tribunal. 19. In present case, it is not in dispute that according to applicable rules and regulations, the age prescribed for superannuation for the persons in Non-workman category is 58 years. 20. It is also not in dispute that the 60 years of age is prescribed as age for superannuation only in respect of the person employed in category of Workman, as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. 21. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time i.e. in July, 1995, the respondent -claimant was employed and working as Executive Engineer. 22. It is also not in dispute that the date of birth of the respondent is 23.07.1937 and that therefore, he completed 58 years of age on 22.07.1995. 23. 21. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time i.e. in July, 1995, the respondent -claimant was employed and working as Executive Engineer. 22. It is also not in dispute that the date of birth of the respondent is 23.07.1937 and that therefore, he completed 58 years of age on 22.07.1995. 23. When the above mentioned factual aspects are not in dispute, it becomes necessary to take into account the decision dated 27.11.2014, whereby it is held that the persons working in the category of Deputy Engineer or on any post/category of Deputy Engineer do not come within the meaning and scope of the term Workman defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. 24. In view of the said decision, it becomes clear that present respondent cannot be termed as Workman under Section 2(s) of the Act. Therefore, the action of the petitioner-board of applying the provision related to age for superannuation in respect of the persons in Non-workman category, cannot be faulted. Consequently, the learned Tribunal could not have interfered with and set aside the said decision and action/order of the petitioner-board, whereby the respondent-claimant was relieved from service when he completed 58 years of age. Moreover, in view of the above facts, actually the reference at the behest of and/or by or on behalf of the respondent i.e. a person who did come within the purview of the term workman could not have been maintained and entertained by the learned Tribunal. 25. In present case, the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the respondent-claimant would come within the purview of Section 2(s) of the Act that he was a workman. The learned Tribunal also erred in holding that since the respondent-claimant was workman, the reference was maintainable. The learned Tribunal also erred in applying the provision related to age for superannuation applicable to the persons employed and worked in the category of workman (though the respondent-claimant cannot be treated and considered as workman) to an officer employee who was employed in and working in managerial supervisory category i.e. in non-workman category. The learned Tribunal also committed error in not accepting petitioner-boards contention that the respondent-claimant was employed in and he was working in Non-workman category and that therefore, the provision related to the age for superannuation prescribed for persons in Non workman category would be applicable in his case. 26. The learned Tribunal also committed error in not accepting petitioner-boards contention that the respondent-claimant was employed in and he was working in Non-workman category and that therefore, the provision related to the age for superannuation prescribed for persons in Non workman category would be applicable in his case. 26. The findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Tribunal, the decision of the learned Tribunal and the final direction issued by the learned Tribunal are erroneous and are not sustainable and contrary to the decision dated 27.11.2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1159 of 2014. Therefore, also impugned award is not sustainable. 27. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned award dated 25.10.2002 passed by the learned Tribunal in Reference (ITN) No. 523/98 is not sustainable and deserves to be set-aside. Consequently, the impugned award is set aside and petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.