Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhai Limbabhai Bamaniya vs Medical Officer on 30 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/823/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 823 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
BHARATBHAI LIMBABHAI BAMANIYA
Versus
MEDICAL OFFICER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAVKUMAR I BHOI(12030) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PRADIP J PATEL(5896) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 30/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by learned labour court, Godhra in Reference (T) No.630 of 2006 dated 18.05.2024 whereby, the amount of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded alongwith cost of Rs.10,000/- instead of reinstatement with a continuity of services, full back wages and other consequential Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 23:34:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/823/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined benefits.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave for the petitioner.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that petitioner was working as a watchman from 07.01.2000 with the respondent-establishment and discharging his service, despite the petitioner has completed 240 days in each year, his services were disengaged by oral order from 22.02.2001 challenging the order passed by the respondent-establishment terminating the services, the dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer which was subsequently rejected and reference being Reference (T) No.630 of 2006.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that he was paid a monthly wage of Rs.600/- and has continuously served for eight hours daily and on some occasions he was also called on holidays too. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Dave that when the learned court has believed that the termination is illegal, instead of awarding lump sum compensation of meager amount of Rs.20,000/-, the award of reinstatement could have been passed. Learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that by not Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 23:34:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/823/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined doing same, learned court has committed error and therefore, petition filed by the present petitioner is required to be allowed by directing the respondent- establishment to reinstate the service, instead of giving lump sum compensation.
5. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate Mr.Dave and considering the reasons assigned by the learned court while granting lump sum compensation, it transpires from the record that the petitioner has served with the respondent-establishment from 07.01.2000 to 22.02.2001 and the Reference was filed after five years delay before the learned court. Reference was awarded in favour of the petitioner after 23 years and therefore, considering the length of service, instead of granting the relief of reinstatement with other benefits, learned labour court has awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/-. At the time of termination, the respondent was getting wages of Rs.600/- per month, therefore, this Court is of the view that no error is committed by the learned labour court while awarding lump sum compensation.
6. So far as the submission of the learned advocate Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 23:34:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/823/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined Mr.Dave with regard to the relief of reinstatement ought to have awarded, that when the termination is held illegal, is concerned this Court is of the view that in every case, the respondent would not be entitled for the relief of reinstatement even if the termination is held illegal and therefore, this Court is of the view that no error is committed by the learned labour court.
7. Resultantly this petition is rejected.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 23:34:38 IST 2025