Gujarat High Court
Ishwarbhai Kantilal Patel vs Ramanews Prints And Papers Limited (Now ... on 25 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8231/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8231 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
ISHWARBHAI KANTILAL PATEL
Versus
RAMANEWS PRINTS AND PAPERS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS SHREE
RAMA NEWS PRINT LTD.)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 25/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 30.11.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court, Surat in Reference (T) No.171 of 2006, whereby, instead of granting reinstatement, the learned Labour Court has awarded a lump sum compensation of ₹7,20,000/- to the petitioner-employee.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner before the learned Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:42:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8231/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025 undefined Labour Court that he was working on the post of Clerk for the last 10 years and was drawing a salary of ₹8,000/- per month. On 10.11.2005, a suspension order was issued in connection with an incident that occurred on 09.11.2005, alleging misconduct, and a chargesheet was subsequently served upon the petitioner. It is further alleged by the petitioner that, being the Vice President of the Union and Secretary of the Rama Papers Mill Karmachari Sangh, he was victimized and subjected to unfair labour practices, resulting in his termination on 04.05.2006.
2.1. The said termination order was challenged before the learned Labour Court. The Labour Court directed a de novo inquiry, whereupon the employer filed a pursis below Exhibit 53 stating that no witness was currently in service with the respondent-employer and hence no further evidence could be adduced. Consequently, the departmental proceedings remained inconclusive. The learned Labour Court, finding the inquiry to be vitiated, allowed the Reference and awarded a lump sum compensation of ₹7,20,000/- in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the said award before this Court on the ground that, despite being entitled to reinstatement, only a meagre amount of ₹7,20,000/- was awarded by the learned Labour Court.
3. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Mishra for the petitioner.
Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:42:42 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8231/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025 undefined
4. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits that though the learned Labour Court has arrived at the conclusion that the charges levelled against the present petitioner were not proved, it has, instead of granting the relief of reinstatement, awarded only lump sum compensation. He further submits that the learned Labour Court has erred in awarding such compensation on the ground that the petitioner is at the verge of retirement. In this regard, it is pointed out that the petitioner is presently aged 59 years and still one year of service remains to be served.
4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits that the bare assertion made by the respondent regarding the closure of the Unit was accepted by the learned Labour Court without calling for or examining any documentary evidence to substantiate the said claim. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra further submits that, in any case, the petitioner was terminated in the year 2006 after having rendered 10 years of continuous service, and the Reference remained pending for a period of 18 years. Therefore, even if the learned Labour Court was of the view that lump sum compensation, in lieu of reinstatement, was to be awarded, the amount ought to have been not less than Rs.10 lakhs. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits that, without assigning any cogent or justifiable reasons, the learned Labour Court has arbitrarily determined the compensation at Rs.7,20,000/-, which deserves to be enhanced.
Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:42:42 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8231/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025 undefined 4.2. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra has relied upon the decision rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1512 of 2019, wherein it has been held that when the departmental inquiry is declared illegal and the termination is found to be a result of victimization, the workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement along with 100% back wages. In view of the above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Mishra prays that the present petition be allowed by setting aside the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court and to grant the relief of reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocate and on referring the reasons assigned by the learned labour Court, certain facts emerge as undisputed, which are mentioned hereinbelow:
1. That the petitioner was employed with the respondent-employer for a period of approximately 10 years and was discharging duties on the post of Clerk.
2. It is alleged in the show cause notice and the chargesheet that on 09.11.2005 at around 07:45 p.m., the petitioner was involved in a hot altercation with a co-
employee, namely, Ms. Hetal R. Patel, who was serving in the Raw Material Department. It is further alleged that the petitioner used abusive language and, upon objection by the said co-employee, he physically assaulted her.
3. A similar allegation was also made regarding the Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:42:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8231/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025 undefined petitioner's misbehavior with one Mr. Chitranjan, a driver of tractor bearing registration No. GJ-5-3430.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, a chargesheet was issued to the petitioner on 12.11.2005.
5. During the course of the departmental inquiry, it is recorded that the petitioner failed to cooperate despite being called on multiple dates i.e. 03.12.2005, 12.12.2005, and 10.01.2006. It is further recorded that on 16.11.2005, the petitioner has purportedly admitted his guilt without contesting the specific allegations.
6. Thereafter, the respondent-employer passed an order of dismissal on 04.05.2006, and one month's notice pay along with other terminal dues amounting to ₹58,808/- was paid to the petitioner through cheque.
7. The learned labour Court has passed an order below Exhibit 11 holding the departmental inquiry against the Standing Orders and the respondent-employee was given opportunity to prove the charges by allowing the application below Exhibit 49. The pursis came to be filed below Exhibit 53 that all the witnesses have left the job and in absence of availability of witness, the charges were held unproved before the learned labour Court.
8. In absence of proving the charges, the order of punishment of terminating the service on 04.05.2006 was held illegal.
Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:42:42 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8231/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025 undefined
6. It is not in dispute that the date of birth of the present petitioner is 16.09.1965. On the date of the award, i.e., 30.11.2024, the petitioner had already attained the age of 59 years. As of today, he has completed 60 years and 3 months of age. In addition to that, from the evidence produced by the respondent-employee at Exhibit 59, it is established that the Union has been closed since 18.10.2021. During the cross-examination of the present petitioner, a specific question was put to him to produce evidence to establish whether, as on date, the work previously carried out by him and the post held by him still exist or not. In response, the petitioner admitted that no such evidence is available and answered the question in the negative form.
7. Additionally, it also emerges from the record that the petitioner was engaged in agricultural activities and drawing income from his land situated at village Bhesan. The learned Labour Court, while considering the monthly wages of Rs.8,000/- and the tenure of service of 10 years, along with other relevant factors, arrived at the conclusion that an appropriate amount of lump sum compensation would be Rs.7,20,000/-.
8. As the petitioner has also failed to establish before this Court that the Unit is currently operational, and since only three months remain for the petitioner to attain the age of superannuation, this Court is of the opinion that no Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:42:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8231/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025 undefined error has been committed by the learned Labour Court in awarding lump sum compensation of Rs.7,20,000/-
9. This Court has also referred to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 wherein it has been held that merely because the termination is held to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement cannot be granted as a matter of course. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the relief can be suitably molded by awarding lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. The relevant observation of the Apex Court is required to be referred to and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"34. Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization (See :
State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 ). Thus when he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:42:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8231/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025 undefined inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose."
10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the lump sum compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- awarded by the learned Labour Court is just, fair and reasonable. Hence, no interference is warranted in the impugned award and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
11. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:42:42 IST 2025