Taluka Development Officer vs Shomeshwer Laljibhai Prajapati

      C/LPA/1482/2022                                ORDER DATED: 15/02/2023




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1482 of 2022

             In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1633 of 2018

                                   With
                CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
               In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1482 of 2022
==========================================================
                         TALUKA DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
                                    Versus
                        SHOMESHWER LALJIBHAI PRAJAPATI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UM SHASTRI(830) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA

                              Date : 15/02/2023

                    ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA) A judicial decision is best arrived at when passed upon consideration of rival party.

1.1 Heard learned advocate Mr.U.M. Shastri for the appellants - Taluka Development Officer and District Development Officer and learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave for respondent No.1.

2. Labour Court, Godhra by its judgment and award dated 01st December, 2017, allowing the Reference (T) No.122 of 2013 of the respondent - workman, directed Taluka Development Officer and District Development Officer, Godhra (now Mahisagar) to reinstate the workman on original Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 17 20:52:54 IST 2023 C/LPA/1482/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/02/2023 post with continuity of service and with 50% back wages, holding that action of termination of the workman on part of first party employer was bad in law. Also directed was payment of Rs.04,000/- towards cost to the workman.

3. Admittedly, the aforementioned judgment and award was ex parte. The appellants-employer did not remain present. It appears from the events recorded by the Labour Court that it was more than once that right to file reply of the first party employer was closed by the Labour Court. Finally, the Labour Court proceeded ex parte to consider the case of the workman to arrive at a finding recorded to pass judgment and award as above.

3.1 In the Special Civil Application filed by the appellants seeking to challenge judgment and award of the Labour Court, the prayer itself indicated that it was to set aside the ex parte judgment and award as was passed by the Labour Court.

3.2 Learned Single Judge rested upon the events and the chronology in the proceedings before the Labour Court wherein the first party employer was found to have been absented itself and did not defend the case despite opportunities extended to it. It was held by learned Single Judge that in the circumstances when the employer did not present itself to defend the case, to answer the case of the workman, ex parte judgment and award passed by the Labour Court was justified.

C/LPA/1482/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/02/2023

4. While it is true that despite opportunities made available, the employer failed to remain present. At the same time, the aspect stares at the case that the first party employer could not avail, for whatever reasons, the chance to put forward its case and to refute the case of te workman.

5. While considering the challenge to the ex parte judgment and award of the Labour Court as well as confirming order of the learned Single Judge, consideration which predominates this Court is that the Labour Court proceeded one sided. The Labour Court did not have before it the counter version of the controversy. The employer was not present and the case was decided resulting into reinstatement and grant of back wages with continuity of service.

5.1 Right to be heard is a valuable right in the legal proceedings for any party. Deprivation thereof would ordinarily taint the decision. Opportunity to meet with the case is part of natural justice. An ex-parte verdict may often perceived to be weak on merits as it is based on the say of interested party.

6. In the aforesaid view, the Court is inclined to remand the proceedings of Reference to the Labour Court, Godhra for its decision afresh. While taking such recourse, the Court is not oblivious of the aspect that the workman has to undergo the rigmarole of repeated litigation because of absence on part of the employer. It would be therefore only proper that the appellants-employer is is put to strict terms including imposition of costs.

C/LPA/1482/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/02/2023 6.1 The Court also notices that learned Single Judge in paragraph No.9 of order recorded thus, "9. It would be in facts of this case appropriate to observe the shocking manner in which the litigation has been handled at the end of the petitioners, and therefore, the Court is compelled to direct the District Development Officer, Dist:Mahisagar to initiate the inquiry to find out as to why the proceedings before the Labour Court were not taken up seriously or followed up or rather handled in a callous manner and after such inquiry may hold the Erring Officer responsible for the award being passed against the petitioners."

6.2 In the aforesaid view, this Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed to the extent of setting aside judgment and order of learned Single Judge compromised in paragraph Nos.1 to 8 and which setting aside is only for the purpose of enabling the Labour Court to decide the Reference afresh.

7. Accordingly, proceedings of Reference (T) No.122 of 2013 shall be retried by the Labour Court after giving opportunity to the appellants to file written statement and allowing the parties to lead respective evidence. The entire exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of present order by the Labour Court.

8. Both the parties shall cooperate to ensure decision of the Reference within the time limit stipulated as above.

9. As the proceedings are remanded, this Court does not express any opinion on merits of the case.

C/LPA/1482/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/02/2023

10. The appellants are directed to pay cost of Rs.15,000/- each to the workman within fifteen days. Payment of cost as above shall be condition precedent before the Labour Court proceeds to decide the Reference afresh. In the event of non-payment of cost, judgment and award of the Labour Court as well as the order of learned Single Judge shall operate.

11. The Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly and to the said extent allowed.

In view of order passed in the main Letters Patent Appeal, no order is required to be passed in the Civil Application and it stands disposed of accordingly. Notice stands discharged in the Civil Application.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J) (NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) ANUP Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 17 20:52:54 IST 2023