Gujarat High Court
Bhavnagar District Panchayat vs Anilaben Khodubhai Bhatti on 12 February, 2025
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1688/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1688 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5244 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1688 of 2024
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1691 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12332 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2024 In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1691 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12332 of 2021
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1692 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12359 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2024 In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1692 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12359 of 2021
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1725 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12331 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2024 In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1725 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12331 of 2021
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1771 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5243 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1771 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5243 of 2021
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1793 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5241 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1793 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5241 of 2021
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1794 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18957 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2024
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Fri Feb 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 02:37:53 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1688/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1794 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18957 of 2021
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 103 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5242 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 103 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5242 of 2021
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 109 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12334 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 109 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12334 of 2021
==========================================================
BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT
Versus
ANILABEN KHODUBHAI BHATTI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AAKASH MODI FOR MS KHUSHBU D CHHAYA(8093) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 12/02/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Admit. Learned advocate Mr.Modi waives service of notice of admission for and on behalf of the respondent.
2. The present appeals emanate from the common judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23.10.2024, wherein and whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant - Bhavnagar Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Fri Feb 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 02:37:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1688/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined District Panchayat, whereas the writ petition filed by the workmen was partly allowed by granting lump sum compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to each of them in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.
3. At the outset, the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have conceded that the learned Single Judge erred in partly allowing the writ petition filed by the workmen, in which they have claimed full back wages and simultaneously, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant - Bhavnagar District Panchayat.
4. The facts relating to employment of the respondents, as incorporated by the learned Single Judge in the said judgement, are undisputed however, learned advocate Mr.Munshaw has vehemently opposed the appeals and at the outset, has submitted that the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be quashed and set aside since the amount awarded to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- to each workmen is exorbitant and the same is required to be considerably reduced to the amount of Rs.65,000/- at the most, looking to the fact that there was delay in raising dispute of 7 years. He has further submitted that the respondents - workmen were engaged as part-timers Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Fri Feb 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 02:37:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1688/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined by the appellant - Bhavnagar District Panchayat and hence, it is urged that the common judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge may be quashed and set aside or compensation may be reduced. He has also submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court as the same pertains to the employees, who were engaged for 'full time part timers', whereas the respondent- workmen are 'part-timers'.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Modi has submitted that the impugned judgement passed by the learned Single Judge may not be set aside. He has submitted that the employees had worked for almost 24 years and one of the petitioners- Mehbubbhai Pathan has worked for 18 years and hence, the learned Single Judge, after considering the judgement of the Apex Court, has awarded the lump-sum compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- looking to the length of service. Thus, it is urged that the present appeals may be dismissed.
6. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them.
7. The facts, as recorded by the learned Single Judge are undisputed. The same read as under:
Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Fri Feb 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 02:37:53 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1688/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined "4. Gist of the case is that the respondent herein was working as Hamal/Sweeper on fix salary of Rs.675/- per month since more than 20 years. In the year 2003 reference was filed before the learned labour court at Bhavnagar praying to regularize the service and to grant consequential benefit. The said reference was filed through Maha Gujarat General Majdoor Panchayat. During the pendency of the reference, the service of the present respondents were terminated by the petitioner on 23.07.2007 and therefore, the aforesaid reference came to be withdrawn on 16.07.2014. Immediately thereafter, the complaint came to be filed under section 33(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "IT Act") being complaint ID No.3 of 2014 alleging that without filing the approval application and seeking permission from the learned labour court, services were terminated during the pendency of the reference. Learned labour court has come to the conclusion that except two workmen namely Mr.Mehbub Kasambhai Pathan who is petitioner in Special Civil Application No.18957 of 2021 and in cross petition No.5241 of 2021 and Mr.Dipakbhai Dinubhai Hada who is petitioner in Special Civil Application No.12332 of 2021 and in cross petition No.5243 of 2021, has granted benefit of 25% back wages with a continuity of services. However, in two petitions i.e. of Mr.Mehbub Kasambhai Pathan and Mr.Dipakbhai Dinubhai Hada learned labour court in addition to granting the benefit of 25% back wages with continuity of services has passed an award for reinstatement which is subject matter of challenge by way of different petitions."
8. So far as the aspect of delay is concerned, the learned Single Judge has categorically held that after the respondents were terminated on 23.07.2007, they raised the industrial dispute which came to be withdrawn on 16.07.2014 and thereafter, immediate complaint came to be filed under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act) being Complaint ID No.3 of Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Fri Feb 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 02:37:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1688/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined 2014 alleging that without filing approval application and/or seeking permission from the Labour Court, their services were terminated.
9. Thus, we are in complete agreement that delay cannot defeat the cause of the respondent- workmen.
10. So far as grant of compensation is concerned, the learned Single Judge has held thus:
"9 Considering the submission made by the learned advocate and the reasons assigned by the learned labour court, certain undisputed facts which are referred by the learned labour court are required to be considered first. The present respondent-workmen were working on a fix salary since more than 20 years, details of each workmen are stated herein below:-
Sr. Name & Petition Service Period No. Number 1 Ramaben Hada 19/02/1983 to 23/07/2007 SCA 12331/2021 (24 years) 2 Rasilaben Sisodiya 15/06/1983 to 23/07/2007 SCA 12333/2021 (24 years) 3 Mehbubbhai Pathan 01/02/1989 to 23/07/2007 SCA 18957/2021 (18 years) Cross SCA 5241/2021 4 Arvindbhai Mavani 02/11/1982 to 23/07/2007 SCA 12334/2021 (25 years) Cross SCA 5242/2021 5 Dipakbhai Hada 07/02/1983 to 23/07/2007 Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Fri Feb 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 02:37:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1688/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined SCA 12332/2021 (24 years) Cross SCA 5243/2021 6 Dipakbhai Hada 03/06/1983 to 07/02/1983 SCA 12359/2021 (24 years) Cross SCA 5244/2021
10. The reference was filed being No.6 of 2003 claiming for regularization which was withdrawn on 16.07.2014 as their services were terminated on 23.07.2007. The application seeking permission to withdraw was filed wherein, it is stated that as their services were terminated with a view to file appropriate reference challenging the order of termination, the permission was granted to withdraw the reference being No.6 of 2003.
11. It is also not disputed by the management that the respondent-workman has not completed 240 days as during the cross-examination they had admitted that from the date of joining they had served continuously up to 2007. The only contention is that as per the circular dated 01.05.2007 their services were terminated as they had not been appointed after following due procedure of law. Even if that contention is accepted for the sake of acceptance then also it appears that all the workmen had completed more than 20 years of service and at that point of time no objections were raised with regard to the non possessing requisite qualification nor appointment without following due procedure. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioners to raise this contention after availing the service for more than 20 years."
11. After recording that all the employees have worked for respective years mentioned hereinabove and the tenure of such employees were not disputed, while placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court, the learned Single Judge has held thus:
Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Fri Feb 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 02:37:53 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1688/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined "14. At this stage the reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Versus Kalawati Pandurang Fulzele rendered in Civil Application No.463 of 2022 is required to be made wherein, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"3. Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave error in ordering reinstatement of the respondent with back wages. It is submitted that the High Court has materially erred in observing and/or confirming the order passed by the Labour Court holding that there was a breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that the appointment of the respondent was on purely contractual basis and for a particular period and on completion of the contractual period, her services were put to end. It is therefore submitted that when she was serving as a part-timer on contractual basis, Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act shall not be applicable and therefore there is no question of breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act as held by the Labour Court and confirmed by the High Court
6. It is true that as such all the three courts below (except the Industrial Court) held the termination of the respondent - workman in breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement with back wages. However, it is required to be noted that even as per the appointment order produced by the respondent herself, her appointment was on contractual basis at a fixed salary/honorarium of Rs. 500/- per month. Though, it is a case on behalf of the appellant that her appointment was a fixed term appointment, however, considering the appointment order, the appointment was till further orders. Be that it may, the fact remains that her appointment was on contractual basis and on a fixed salary/honorarium of Rs.500/- per month. It also cannot be disputed that she worked approximately Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Fri Feb 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 02:37:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1688/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined for four years as a sweeper. As such there were no specific averments/allegations in the complaint on any unfair labour practice. Even there was no specific finding recorded by the Labour Court that there was any unfair labour practice adopted by the MSRTC. The only finding recorded by the Labour Court was that the termination was in breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the nature of appointment of the respondent namely as contractual appointment on a fixed salary/honorarium of Rs.500/- per month and she worked for approximately four years, we are of the opinion that in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, if a lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) is awarded, it will meet the ends of justice.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, when the appointment was purely on contractual basis and on a fixed salary/honorarium of Rs.500/- per month, the order of reinstatement with back wages was not warranted and instead if the lumpsum compensation is awarded in lieu of reinstatement and back wages as observed hereinabove, it will meet the ends of justice."
12. Thus, the Apex Court has awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the employees, who were working on honorarium basis on fixed salary of Rs.500/- per month and had worked approximately for 4 years. In the present case, it is not in dispute that all the employees were engaged for more than 20 years, except one of the petitioners viz. Mehbubbhai Pathan, who has worked for 18 years and they were being paid the wages of Rs.675/- per month since more than 20 years. The appellant has continued the respondents for a very long period on the same status, and they were terminated from Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Fri Feb 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 02:37:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1688/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined service on the pretext that they were not appointed after following due procedure. They had also withdrawn the reference proceedings claiming regularization, since they were terminated from service. In wake of the aforesaid facts, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge was gracious enough to fix the amount of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. However, it appears that the learned Single Judge has committed a technical error, by 'partly allowing' the writ petition filed by the workmen, which was filed for claiming the full back wages. We are not inclined to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge on this aspect.
13. Hence, we are not inclined to reduce the compensation. The appellant - Bhavnagar District Panchayat is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to each respondent-workmen within a period of 8 weeks from today.
14. With the foregoing reasons, the present appeals stand dismissed.
Registry to place a copy of this order in each of the connected matters.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J) NVMEWADA/24-32 Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Fri Feb 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 02:37:53 IST 2025