Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 899 (GUJ)

Dhanaji Krishnaji v. Manjushree Textile Limited

2019-10-14

SONIA GOKANI

body2019
ORDER : SONIA GOKANI, J. 1. By filing this application, challenge is made to the judgment and order passed in Recovery Application No. 926 of 2005 dated 20.10.2018 passed by the Labour Court No. 1, Ahmedabad and also to seek direction to release the amount as per the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Appeal no. 54 of 1994. 2. The petitioner is an employee of Manjushree Textile Limited who had joined the services on 04.02.1964 as a regular employee. On 17.01.1984, the petitioner's service came to be dismissed which had been challenged by way of T-Application No. 120 of 1984. The same was partly allowed and the order of reinstatement was passed. 3. The labour Court's judgment was challenged by way of appeal being Appeal No. 54 of 1994. The Manjushree Textile Limited was going into liquidation and the Payment Commissioner was directed to pay the backwages to the petitioner. The settlement had been arrived at between the Government of India and Union of Mazdoor Mahajan Sangh. The petitioner was also entitled to get the backwages as per the judgment and order of the Industrial Court. 4. He had filed the Company Application being No. 210 of 2000 in Company Petition No. 205 of 1996 which since has been allowed by this Court on 15.11.2000, whereby the order of the learned Single Judge had been set aside. The same is reproduced as under:- "This company application is filed by applicant Dhanaji Krishnaji, a permanent worker of Manjushree Textiles Mills Co. Ltd. (In Liquidation) with a prayer to direct the Official Liquidator as well as the Payment Commissioner, the respondents no. 1 and 3 to pay the legal dues as per order passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. 54/1994 dated 12.6.1997. It is the case of the applicant that he joined the services on 4.2.1964 and was dismissed from service on 17.1.1984. He challenged the order of dismissal by filing an application being T. Application No. 120/1984 before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings, the Mill company was ordered to be wound up and Official Liquidator was appointed by this court. It further appears that thereafter, the Gujarat State Textiles Corporation has taken over the said company from the original owner during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings, the Mill company was ordered to be wound up and Official Liquidator was appointed by this court. It further appears that thereafter, the Gujarat State Textiles Corporation has taken over the said company from the original owner during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court. The Gujarat State Textiles Corporation was also made a party in the said application filed by the applicant. The Labour Court, by its judgment dated 30.5.1988 held that the order of dismissal passed against the applicant-worker was bad and illegal. However, instead of ordering reinstatement, the Labour Court directed the old owner of the company to pay back-wages from the date of discharge. It appears that the applicant challenged the said order of the Labour Court by filing a petition being Special Civil Application No. 5498/89 before this Court. However, this Court, on 1.9.93 directed the applicant to file and agitate his claim before the appropriate forum. The applicant filed an appeal being Appeal No.(I.C.) 54/1994 before the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad. The Industrial Court, Ahmedabad by judgment and order dated 17.6.1997 allowed the appeal by confirming the order passed by the Labour Court declaring the order of dismissal as illegal and bad in law. However, the Industrial Court directed that as far as the back-wages are concerned, it would be the liability of the old management and the Payment Commissioner is liable to make the payment. According to the Industrial Court, the applicant is entitled to all the benefits as if he was on duty on the appointed day and whatever the benefits the other workers have enjoyed, the applicant is also entitled to have the similar benefits. Accordingly, the Industrial Court has directed the respondent no. 2-The Gujarat State Textiles Corporation either to reinstate the applicant or to pay the benefits available to him. This Court, by its order dated 29.8.2000 directed the respondent no. 4-I.A. Vora or his successor in office, Officer on Special Duty, G.I.D.C., Udyog Bhavan, Gandhinagar to verify the claim of the applicant and to submit his report accordingly within three weeks. In compliance with the said order, report was submitted wherein, it was stated that Rs. 11,130/- is payable to the applicant towards the closure/retrenchment compensation. Accordingly, this court on 28.9.2000 directed that the said amount be paid to the applicant. In compliance with the said order, report was submitted wherein, it was stated that Rs. 11,130/- is payable to the applicant towards the closure/retrenchment compensation. Accordingly, this court on 28.9.2000 directed that the said amount be paid to the applicant. The applicant, however, has stated that he is entitled to have the benefits of the amount as per the order passed by the Industrial Court over and above the aforesaid amount. Therefore, the point which is required to be decided is whether the applicant is entitled to receive any further amount over and above the amount of Rs. 11,130/-. The Official Liquidator has submitted his report, wherein he has referred to the letter of GIDC dated 18.10.2000 and the report of Suketu Trivedi & Co., Chartered Accountant, who have investigated the claim of the applicant. It is stated in the report that after the nationalization, the G.S.T.C. has disbursed as per statement prepared by the Mill Rs. 1,02,48,216-90ps. As gratuity and Rs. 90,39,426-15ps. as compensation respectively to such employees/workers of the company, who were not employed by the GSTC after nationalization. However, the applicant was not the only person who was not re-employed by GSTC. In fact, he was also awarded the gratuity and retrenchment compensation as aforesaid and as per the provisions of Section 11(4)(a)(I) of the Gujarat Nationalization Act, 1986 in respect of persons whose services stood terminated. In the circumstances and in view of the facts stated above, the applicant is entitled to his right of receiving the amount of retrenchment compensation only from the date of joining the service till the date of closure which works out to Rs. 11,130/-, as stated in the report dated 21.9.2000 and nothing else. This is also the stand of other respondents. In my opinion, the stand taken by the GSTC is not reasonable. It is to be noted that the GSTC was the party respondent before the Labour Court and the Industrial Court and, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the competent court is binding to them. The VRS Scheme entered into between the T.L.A. & G.S.T.C., wherein the dead-line of 31.12.1996 prescribed by this court is applicable to the workers, who were on duty on or before the said date. It is unfortunate that the applicant was kept-out throughout as he was taking remedy available to him before the competent court. The VRS Scheme entered into between the T.L.A. & G.S.T.C., wherein the dead-line of 31.12.1996 prescribed by this court is applicable to the workers, who were on duty on or before the said date. It is unfortunate that the applicant was kept-out throughout as he was taking remedy available to him before the competent court. Admittedly, the order of dismissal was set aside by the Labour Court on 30.5.1988 and that was confirmed by the Industrial Court on 17.6.1990. The Labour Court could have directed reinstatement of the applicant in the year 1988 itself, but for the fact that the Mill company was closed. In any case, the Industrial Court did pass the order to provide all benefits as if the applicant was on duty on the date of the V.R.S. and to provide the benefits of V.R.S. like other workmen. This being a judicial order which is required to be honoured unless it is set aside by the higher forum. Admittedly, the order passed by the Industrial court is not challenged by the respondents and, therefore, the same is binding to them. In view of this position, in my opinion, the applicant is entitled to get the benefits up to 31.12.1996 like other workmen. In this view of the matter, this application is allowed. The respondents are directed to calculate the benefits available to the applicant under the V.R.S. Up to 31.12.1996 on the same line of other workers from the date of dismissal and to pay the same to the applicant after adjusting the amount already paid within four weeks from today. On getting the exact figure of the amount, the applicant shall receive from Official Liquidator who is permitted to encash the Fixed Deposits of the company for paying dues of the applicant." 5. On 13.08.2003, this Court had dismissed the Misc. Civil Application No. 101 of 2003 filed in O.J. Appeal No. 10 of 2001, on the ground that the applicant workman has been abusing the process of law and no case is made out even for appeal and filing the review application. The order dated 13.08.2003 reads as under:- "Heard petitioner in person. Perused the application for review of the order passed while disposing of O.J. Appeal No. 10 of 2001 dated 6th March, 2003 as well as the judgment, where the court has disposed of the appeal filed by the Official Liquidator. The order dated 13.08.2003 reads as under:- "Heard petitioner in person. Perused the application for review of the order passed while disposing of O.J. Appeal No. 10 of 2001 dated 6th March, 2003 as well as the judgment, where the court has disposed of the appeal filed by the Official Liquidator. On considering the application, wherein, the applicant had also prayed for delay in filing review application as highlighted in para 5 of the application, the applicant had also admitted that ex-gratia payment of Rs. 1 lac, as directed by this Court, was paid to the applicant workman and was already received by the applicant long back. However, according to the applicant, he has accepted the said amount under objection. 2. We are of the view that applicant had while moving this application, has no regard for truth and the HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Thu Oct 17 16:09:10 IST 2019 applicant has moved this court with some ulterior motive. Even, while hearing the appeal filed by the O.L., after ascertaining the applicant workman, we have requested Mr. Vasavada to represent the case of the applicant workman and applicant workman had also agreed that his case will be represented by Mr. Vasavada and we have also heard Mr. Vasavada at length while disposing of O.J. Appeal and we had also given time to Mr. Vasavada as requested by applicant to consider for acceptance of any amount suggested by the Court, to be paid to him by way of ex-gratia payment. We are of the view that the attitude adopted by the applicant workman clearly suggests that he is abusing process of law and no case is made out, even for delay in filing review application. Hence, there is no substance in the review application filed by the applicant. Accordingly, application deserves to be rejected." 6. Once again, before the labour Court the recovery application came to be filed being No. 926 of 2005 for getting the benefits. The Court rejected the same on the ground that the total amount received by the employee is Rs. 1,00,000/- and he had not come with clean hands. 7. This Court has heard learned advocate Mr. Parmar appearing for the petitioner and learned AGP for the State. It can be noticed that it has already received the benefits as rightly held by the Labour Court no. 1, Ahmedabad. 1,00,000/- and he had not come with clean hands. 7. This Court has heard learned advocate Mr. Parmar appearing for the petitioner and learned AGP for the State. It can be noticed that it has already received the benefits as rightly held by the Labour Court no. 1, Ahmedabad. The Division Bench also had deprecated his conduct. Once again, he has approached this Court. He has challenged the order of Division Bench by way of SLP No. 23062 of 2003 which was dismissed. Just because he is a workman, the Court has chosen not to impose the cost while dismissing the same. 8. Disposed of accordingly.