Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 273 (GUJ)

MANUBHAI RAGHAVBHAI PARMAR v. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

2018-01-25

BIREN VAISHNAV, M.R.SHAH

body2018
JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Letters Patent Appeals and as such they arise out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos. 5943/2008 to 5945/2008, all these Letters Patent Appeals are heard, decided and disposed of together by this common order. 2. Today, when the present Letters Patent Appeals are taken up for further hearing, Shri Chhaya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respective appellants – original worken has stated at the Bar that as such after the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and even before the present appeals are preferred by the concerned workmen as well as the original respondent – Gujarat Water Supply Sewerage Board, order has already been passed reinstating the concerned workmen and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge has been accepted by the respondent Board. Therefore, in view of the order dated 23.02.2017, Shri Chhaya, learned Advocate appearing for the original workmen does not press the present Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 972/2017 to 974/2017 more particularly in view of the fact that even under the order dated 23.02.2017 of the Executive Engineer of the Board, the continuity is ordered to be considered for the purpose of gratuity. However, has made a grievance that by misreading and/or misinterpreting the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge by which in lieu of 20% back-wages the learned Single Judge has ordered to pay Rs.7000/by way of lumpsum back-wages/compensation, the concerned workmen are paid Rs.7000/per month only instead of paying minimum wages due and payable under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, while disposing of the appeals preferred by the concerned workmen, it is requested to make suitable observation that the concerned workmen shall be paid the wages of reinstatement and even as daily wager they shall be paid the wages/minimum wages provided under the Minimum Wages Act. 3. The subsequent order dated 23.02.2017 passed by the Executive Engineer of the Board is directed to be taken on record. Shri Rituraj Meena, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioners – Board and the appellants of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 3. The subsequent order dated 23.02.2017 passed by the Executive Engineer of the Board is directed to be taken on record. Shri Rituraj Meena, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioners – Board and the appellants of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 2601/2017 to 2603/2017 does not dispute the subsequent order dated 23.02.2017 by which the Board as such has accepted the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. He has stated at the Bar under the instructions from the concerned Officer of the Board that as such the concerned workmen are being paid the wages as daily wagers due and payable under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. In view of the above and more particularly the subsequent order passed by the Executive Engineer dated 23.02.2017, which is already directed to be taken on record, and as requested by Shri Chhaya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 972/2017 to 974/2017, the said Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 972/2017 to 974/2017 are dismissed as not pressed/withdrawn. However, it is observed and directed that on reinstatement the concerned workmen shall be paid the wages as per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act from the date of the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court. Therefore, it is directed that if the original workmen – appellants of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 972/2017 to 974/2017 are not paid/not being paid the minimum wages under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, in that case, same shall be paid by the Board with arrears if any within a period of six weeks from today and continue to pay the same. 4. Now, so far as the Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 2601/2017 to 2603/2017 preferred by the original petitioners challenging the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos. 5943/2008 to 5945/2008 are concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that as such the Board has already accepted and implemented the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge which is evident from the order passed by the Executive Engineer dated 23.02.2017. Under the circumstances, as such the Board ought not to have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeals. Under the circumstances, as such the Board ought not to have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeals. It appears that only as a counter blast to the Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the concerned workmen the Board has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 2601/2017 to 2603/2017 and that too after accepting and implementing the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Under the circumstances, Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 2601/2017 to 2603/2017 preferred by the Board deserve to be dismissed and are, accordingly, dismissed. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16995/2017 TO 16997/2017 In view of disposal of the main Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 2601/2017 to 26034/2017, Civil Application Nos. 16995/2017 to 16997/2017 also stand dismissed. As observed hereinabove, Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 972/2017 to 974/2017 stand dismissed/disposed of/withdrawn with above observations.