AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad in Reference (ITN) No. 489/1998 dated 26.06.2001, whereby, the reference of the respondent was allowed and the petitioner has been directed to treat the respondent as a Clerk and to give him the pay-scale of Clerk and other related benefits from 07.07.1995 and the period between the date of appointment to 06.07.1995 was directed to be treated as notional.
The facts in brief are that the respondent was discharging the duties of a Clerk at the Borsad Depot of the petitioner-Corporation. In pursuance of the death of his father, who was serving as a Conductor with the petitioner-Corporation, the respondent applied for compassionate appointment on the post of Clerk. After following due procedure of recruitment, the competent authority of the petitioner-Corporation issued the order dated 31.07.1976 to the respondent informing that the respondent has been placed at Sr. No. 1 of the merit list of candidates to be appointed as Clerk. However, subsequently, the respondent was issued another order informing that he has been appointed on the post of Helper.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the respondent raised a dispute, which, ultimately, culminated into a reference before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the same. Hence, this petition.
Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. After appreciating the evidence on record, more particularly, the documentary evidence which were produced vide Ex.17, the Court below found that the respondent was discharging the duties of a Clerk at the relevant time. The case of the petitioner that the respondent was working as a Helper and not as a Clerk did not weigh with the Court below on account of the fact that no documentary evidence was produced by the petitioner to show that the respondent was working as a Helper at the relevant time. In fact, it appears that the respondent was being exploited inasmuch as he was doing the work of a Clerk but, was paid the salary of a Helper.
The fact that the respondent had cleared the exams for being appointed as a Clerk is not in dispute. However, on flimsy grounds, his appointment has been with-held. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion herein above, the petitioner-Corporation was completely unjustified in denying the benefit of the post of Clerk to the respondent. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Court below in the impugned award and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.