NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1258/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1258 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13426 of 2017
==========================================================
HARSUKHBHAI GOVINDBHAI JADAV
Versus
INDIAN RAYON INDUSTRIES LTD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KARAN K PAUL(11611) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
KHUSHBU D CHHAYA(8093) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 16/10/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. Karan Paul for the appellant and learned advocate Ms. Khubhu Chaya for the resopndent.
2. The appellant-original petitioner seeks to address challenge by filling this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to judgment and order dated 4.4.2022 of learned single Judge in so far as it relates to decision in Special Civil Application No. 13426 of 2017.
2.1 Thereby learned single Judge confirmed the judgment and order of Labour court dated 7.1.2017 granting to the petitioner-workman lumpsum compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- in lieu of relief of reinstatement. It was provided that if the said amount is not paid within 90 days, it will carry interest at the rate of 9%.
Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 20 20:35:54 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1258/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023 undefined
3. Noticing the relevant facts, the workman was Helper engaged in the Chemical Maintenance and Spinning Department of the first party employer with effect from 30.10.1995. The appellant-workman approached the Labour Court, Junagadh by invoking jurisdiction of Labour court by filling Reference (T) No. 185 of 2005 seeking reinstatement with back wage. It was his case that on 10.11.2001, without any reason his services came to be terminated by oral order. It was the say that work discharged by him was of permanent nature and in terminating his services, the employer committed breach of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman rendered six years of service in total.
3.1 Upon appreciating the evidence, while the Labour court recorded that the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1847, was violated, it did not find it proper to grant the relief of reinstatement, instead granted alternative relief of payment of lumpsum compensation. The relevant aspects taken into account by the Labour Curt while holding so, were the facts that the termination of the service was as back as in the year 2001, that the Reference was filed in the 2005, the total period of service rendered by the workman and other attendant circumstances.
3.2 The challenge to the said judgment and award at the instance of workman, was negatived by learned single Judge rejecting the Special Civil Application.
4. Confirming the judgment and award of the Labour Court, the following reasons are supplied by learned single Judge, extracting from para 8, Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 20 20:35:54 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1258/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023 undefined "....Moreover, referring the judgment of the case of Gitam Singh, the Hon'ble Apex Court has established principle to decide as to the aspects which are required to be considered by the Labour Court in the case of delay such as Type of Appointment of Workman, Type of Work, Duration of employment of Workman, why the workman is retrenched from the employment and why the order for retrenchment of the workman from the employment is set aside. Accordingly, in the instant case, considering the aspects such as Type of Appointment of Workman is Temporary Helper, Duration of employment of Workman is more than six years, the workman is retrenched from the employment without any procedure of law, it has been rightly held to give lumpsum compensation for the breach of Section-25(f) of the Industrial Dispute Act...."
4.1 Learned single Judge proceeded to observe further, "...considering the facts of the instant case, the type of work of the workman is Temporary Helper and the workman was retrenched on 10/11/2001, the workman has filed present dispute in the year - 2006. Considering the facts of the demand statement and deposition of the workman regarding delay for more than four years, the workman has stated the reason for filing present case with delay that he was assured by the respondent for reinstatement to the employment, but no document is produced in this case showing that a written application is made by the workman to the respondent organization to get re-employed.
5. It is trite principle propounded in series of judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court that in all cases, where the finding of breach of Section 25F or any other mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is recorded, it may not necessarily lead to the grant of relief of reinstatement. Adverting to the alternative relief of lumpsum compensation in a given case is permissible.
5.1 The facts and the aspect which may weigh with the court in refusing the reinstatement but granting lumpsum compensation, would include nature of employment given to the workman, the length of service he or she rendered, the time passed by since the date of termination till Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 20 20:35:54 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1258/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023 undefined the actual date when the question of granting main relief is to be considered, the amount of wages received by him and all other such host of factors which may become relevant to give the substituted relief of lump sum compensation.
5.2 As noticed above, learned single Judge has taken into consideration such relevant considerations while upholding the order of the Labour Court which directed payment of lumpsum compensation.
5.3 It was sought to be submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- awarded could be said to be on lower side. The court does not find any substance in this submission, more particularly, there is no gainsaying that workman approached the Labour Court after delay of 5 years. Factor of delay is also to be accounted for in determining the extent of lumpsum compensation which may be paid to the workman in lieu of relief of restatement.
6. In overall facts and circumstances and applying all the relevant aspects cumulatively, neither the relief of payment of lumpsum compensation could be faulted nor extent of amount ordered to be paid could be said to be unreasonable.
7. No error has been committed by learned single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal is meritless. It is dismissed.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) C.M. JOSHI Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 20 20:35:54 IST 2023