Bhavnagar Mahanagar Seva Sadan vs Runaben Bharatbhai Bhatt

Mr. K.M. Thaker, J. (Oral) - Heard Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner - Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation [hereinafter referred to as "the corporation"], and Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the respondent - workmen.

This group of four petitions comprise two petitions, being Special Civil Application No.2821 of 2008 and Special Civil Application No.3461 of 2008, filed by the corporation and other two petitions, i.e. Special Civil Application No.11251 of 2008 and 11252 of 2008, filed by two workmen. The two petitions filed by both the workmen are actually cross petitions vis-a-vis the two petitions filed by the corporation.

2.1 Actually, two awards, both dated 18.8.2006 passed by learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar are the subject matters in captioned four petitions.

As regards factual background, it may be noted that both the claimants namely Ms. R.B.Bhatt and Mr. H.P.Dave raised industrial dispute against allegedly illegal termination by the opponent corporation. The said disputes were referred for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar by appropriate government.

3.1 Before the learned Labour Court, the claimants filed their statement of claims with allegation that their services were terminated by the corporation arbitrarily and without following prescribed procedure of law.

3.2 The reference cases were opposed by the corporation and the corporation denied the allegations in its written statement. The corporation contended that the claimants were engaged purely on temporary, ad-hoc and daily wage basis for temporary project work. It was also claimed that they were engaged on fixed salary / daily wage basis and that therefore, they have no right to claim that they should be continued in service. It was also contended that their services came to an end automatically when the period of their engagement expired.

3.3 The learned Labour Court adjudicated the reference cases and vide award dated 18.8.2006 directed the corporation to reinstate the claimants in service on their original post. With regard to the claim for back wages, the learned Labour Court awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.40,000/- to each claimant instead of awarding full back wages.

3.4 Feeling aggrieved by the award directing reinstatement and lump sum compensation, the corporation filed captioned two petitions, i.e. Special Civil Application No.2821 of 2008 and Special Civil Application No.3461 of 2008.

3.5 Since the learned Labour Court declined to grant full back wages, the claimants also felt aggrieved by same awards and that therefore, the claimants filed petitions being Special Civil Application No.11251 of 2008 and 11252 of 2008 with the request that the award may be modified to the extent it denies full back wages and the corporation may be directed to pay full back wages.

Today, at the time of hearing, Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner corporation, and Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the respondent claimants, have placed on record photocopies of orders dated 13.1.2009, 21.11.2009 and 21.8.2009 and jointly submitted that both the claimants have been reinstated by the corporation since 2009 and the dispute between the parties is amicably settled outside the Court and now, any dispute or grievance or claim by either side does not survive.

4.1 Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner corporation, submitted that the corporation has already reinstated the workmen and so far as direction to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.40,000/- to each claimant is concerned, the claimants have agreed to accept reduced amount which are paid to the claimants and that therefore, now, any cause to prosecute the petitions filed by the corporation does not survive.

4.2 Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the respondent claimants, confirmed the submissions and statement by Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner corporation. He also submitted that the claimants are reinstated and the claimants have agreed to accept the reduced amount as against the lump sum compensation of Rs.40,000/- to each claimant and the said agreed amounts have been paid to the claimants.

4.3 Learned advocates also informed the Court that the said facts about the terms of the agreement are mentioned in the orders dated 13.1.2009, 21.11.2009 and 21.8.2009 passed by the corporation. The learned advocates have jointly tendered on record the photocopies of the orders passed by the corporation.

4.4 Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the respondent claimants, also submitted that in view of the said agreement between the parties any dispute or claim or demand by the claimants do not survive and all disputes are fully and finally settled between the parties and that therefore, any cause to prosecute the petitions filed by the claimants do not survive.

4.5 The learned advocates for the petitioner corporation and the respondent claimants jointly submitted that the petitions may be disposed of in view of the agreement arrived at between the parties and in light of the orders passed by the corporation.

In view of said joint submission and request by learned advocates, following order is passed:-

[a] The orders dated 13.1.2009, 21.11.2009 and 21.8.2009 are accepted and retained on record of this petitions, at the request of learned advocates for the claimants and the corporation.

[b] In view of joint submission and request by learned advocate for the corporation and the claimants, the impugned awards dated 18.8.2006 passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference (LCB) No.116 of 1999 and reference (LCB) No.117 of 1999 are modified in terms of the agreement between the parties, i.e. in terms of the orders dated 13.1.2009, 21.11.2009 and 21.8.2009 passed by the corporation.

[c] Accordingly, the petitions do not survive and are accordingly disposed of.

[d] Since in view of the orders passed by the corporation, the impugned awards are modified and Rule issued by the Court in Special Civil Application No.2821 of 2008 and Special Civil Application No.3461 of 2008 are made absolute.

[e] Consequently, any separate orders in respect of Special Civil Application Nos.11251 of 2008 and 11252 of 2008 are not required to be passed and Rule is discharged in both the matters.

Petitions accordingly stand disposed of.