C/SCA/6578/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6578 of 2009
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6596 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
RAMESH P KHANT
Versus
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RM PARMAR(591) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 17/02/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned cross petitions are filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgement and award dated 31.12.2008, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (LCJ) No.490 of 1991, whereby learned labour court awarded reinstatement with 20% back wages.
Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 20 20:52:45 IST 2023
C/SCA/6578/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2023
2. Special Civil Application No. 6578 of 2009 is filled by the workman with the prayer to implement and execute the award of the labour court dated 03.12.2008 in Reference (LCJ) No.490 of 1991 whereas, Special Civil Application No.6596 of 2009 is filed by the Gujarat Electricity Board (now Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd.) (PGVCL), challenging the said award principally on the ground that provisions of Industrial Disputes Act1947,('the Act" for short) would not be applicable.
3. SCA 6596 of 2009 3.1. It was case of the petitioner company (PGVCL) before the labour court that the workman was appointed on Nominal Muster Roll as casual daily rated employee and there was no master servant relationship between workman and company. The workman worked with the company only for the period from 16.05.1981 to 15.05.1989 with many breaks and had not completed 240 days in a year.
3.2. As against that it was the case of the respondent - workman before the labour court that he had continuously worked with the petitioner company for the period from 1981 to 1989 and having completed service Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 20 20:52:45 IST 2023 C/SCA/6578/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2023 of 8 years, provisions of I. D. Act would be applicable in his case and therefore his dismissal form service was bad in law.
4. As noticed earlier, the labour court after having heard both the sides and having considered the evidence on record, vide order dated 31.12.2005, awarded reinstatement of workman with 25% back wages with cost of Rs.500/-.
5. In respect of the aforesaid judgement and award, these cross petitions have been filed by the respective parties.
6. This court in SCA 6596 of 2009, while issuing notice dated 06.07.2009, had granted stay against operation and implementation of the impugned award, on condition of compliance with provisions of section 17-B of the I.D.Act.
7. Heard Mr.Dipak Dave, learned advocate for Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. and Mr.R.M.Parmar for the respondent-workman.
8. Appearing for the Company it is brought to the notice of this court by learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave that at present the respondent- workman Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 20 20:52:45 IST 2023 C/SCA/6578/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2023 has attained the age of superannuation and therefore it would not be appropriate to raise the ground stated in his petition particularly that there was no breach of condition of Section 25F of the Act and the provisions of I.D Act would not be applicable. Therefore, relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BSNL Vs. Bhurumal reported in 2014(7) SCC 177, he fairly submitted that judgement and award of the labour Court may accordingly be modified. To the above proposition learned advocate for the workman has no objection.
9. Having heard learned advocates for respective parties and considering the fact that award of reinstatement now cannot be given effect as the workman has attained the age of superannuation, in my opinion, it would meet the ends of justice if the award of the labour court dated 31.12.2008, is appropriately modified. Therefore, in facts of present case, without going in to the merits of the matter and considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of, BSNL (supra), the impugned judgement and award passed by the Labour Court dated 31.12.2008 in Reference LCJ No. 490 of 1991 is modified as under:
(i) The petitioner company (PGVCL), is directed to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 20 20:52:45 IST 2023 C/SCA/6578/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2023 Lacs) to respondent-workman as full and final settlement of his services rendered with the petitioner-PGVCL.
(ii) The amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as referred in clause (i) above is directed to be paid by PGVCL to workman, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, interest at the rate 6% per annum is directed to be paid for the delayed period.
(iii) SCA No.6596 of 2009, is disposed of with the above modification. Rule made absolute to the above extent. Stay granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to cost.
SCA 6578 OF 2009
10. In view of the directions contained in SCA 6596 of 2009, Mr.R.M.Parmar, learned advocate for the petitioner-workman does not press Special Civil Application No.6578 of 2009. Special Civil Application No. 6578 of 2009, is disposed of as not pressed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) DIPTI PATEL Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 20 20:52:45 IST 2023