Gujarat High Court
Divisional Controller vs Merambhai Karsanbhai Boricha on 10 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13090/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13090 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
Versus
MERAMBHAI KARSANBHAI BORICHA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK C RAWAL(719) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
KHUSHBU D CHHAYA(8093) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 10/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court No. 3, Rajkot, granting the relief of reinstatement with 50% back wages and directing the payment of all terminal benefits.
2. The petitioner's case is that the respondent was serving as a conductor since 1985, and his services were terminated after a departmental inquiry for the charge of not collecting fares from two passengers. The order of dismissal was challenged by filing Civil Suit No.117 of Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jan 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 13 21:38:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13090/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined 1985, which was decreed in favor of the respondent. However, Appeal No.14 of 1993 was filed against the decree, and the appeal was allowed on the ground of jurisdiction. Subsequently, the dispute was raised in the year 2008 before the learned Labour Court, in Reference (LCR) No. 18 of 2008, seeking reinstatement along with other consequential benefits. The learned Labour Court has awarded the Reference in favor of the present respondent, which is the subject matter of consideration before this Court.
3. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Rawal appearing for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms. Chhaya for the respondent.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Rawal submits that the learned Labour Court committed an error in exercising the power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the I.D.Act' referred hereinafter). Although the legality of the inquiry was upheld, the learned Labour Court granted reinstatement and 50% back wages on the ground that there was no previous misconduct as pointed out by the petitioner-corporation. Learned advocate Mr. Rawal further submits that there was a delay in filing the Reference by the respondent, who initially filed a Civil Suit challenging the order of termination in 1985, and later, the Reference was filed before the learned Labour Court in 2008. Learned advocate Mr. Rawal also submits that during the Reference, the statement of claim was filed in 2014, and therefore, the learned Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jan 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 13 21:38:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13090/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined Labour Court committed an error in awarding the Reference in favor of the present respondent. Learned advocate Mr. Rawal submits that previous instances would not be the only ground for challenging the punishment imposed during the departmental inquiry, and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, and the petition should be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Chhaya submits that there was no delay on the part of the respondent in challenging the impugned termination, as due to wrong advice, the respondent had filed a suit before the Civil Court. After the appeal was allowed in 2007 on the ground of jurisdiction, the dispute was immediately raised before the learned Labour Court under Section 11(A) of the I.D. Act. Learned advocate Ms. Chhaya further submits that merely for not collecting the fare from two passengers, a harsh and major punishment such as dismissal cannot be imposed. Learned advocate Ms.Chhaya submits that the learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence in detail, concluded that the punishment imposed was disproportionate, and therefore, the Reference was awarded in favor of the present respondent. In that view of the matter, no interference is required, and the petition should be dismissed.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and the reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court, it emerges Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jan 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 13 21:38:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13090/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined that the service of the present respondent was terminated in 1985. Instead of filing the Reference, the respondent filed a suit, which was decreed in favor of the respondent, but in appeal, the decree was set aside on the ground of jurisdiction. After the decree was set aside in 2007, the Reference was filed in 2008 before the learned Labour Court. After filing the statement of claim, no evidence was adduced until 2014, and it is undisputed that the petitioner retired on attaining superannuation in 2008. The learned Labour Court assigned reasons for granting 50% back wages, stating that the respondent wasted 22 years by choosing the wrong forum, and that the termination was in 1985, with 31 years already having passed. Based on this, 50% back wages were awarded.
7. This Court is of the view that instead of granting 50% back wages, the learned Labour Court could have granted the relief of reinstatement without any back wages, considering the delay caused by the respondent in approaching the proper forum and adducing evidence thereafter. As the legality and validity of the departmental proceedings were not challenged, the order granting the relief of reinstatement by considering the previous instance is just and proper. However, granting the benefits of 50% back wages along with the relief of reinstatement, this Court believes that the learned Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction, and therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside.
Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jan 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 13 21:38:10 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13090/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined
8. In light of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned award qua granting of 50% back wages is set aside, but the remaining part of the award remains unchanged. The petitioner is directed to pay the benefits as awarded by the learned Labour Court, except for the 50% back wages, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
9. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. Direct service is permitted.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jan 13 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 13 21:38:10 IST 2025