Gujarat High Court
Rollwell Forge Limited vs Dayashankar Pal S/O Ramdhari Pal on 7 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8192/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8192 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8198 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8190 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8195 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8184 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8186 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8204 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8201 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8208 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17685 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
ROLLWELL FORGE LIMITED
Versus
DAYASHANKAR PAL S/O RAMDHARI PAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
RAVI B SHAH(5346) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/05/2025
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:20:44 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8192/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Ravi Shah waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.
2. These petitions are filed challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court dated 18.03.2020, whereby the learned Labour Court had partially allowed the reference of the respondent and directed the petitioner to pay the lump-sum compensation against the illegal termination.
3. It is the case of the present petitioners that respondents have raised an industrial dispute challenging the termination by filing the reference, learned Labour Court has granted lump-sum compensation considering the breach of Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes Gujarat Rules, 1966, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Naidu for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Shah for the respondent.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Naidu submits that the learned Labour Court has committed error in holding that the employer Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8192/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined has committed breach of Rule 81. Learned advocate Mr. Naidu submits that, undisputably, the learned Labour Court has concluded that the termination of the workmen is not in violation of Section 25 F, G and H of the I.D. Learned advocate Mr. Naidu submits that in absence of breach of Section 25 F, Rule 81 would not be attracted and therefore, the learned Labour Court has committed grave error in awarding the lump-sum compensation to the respondents - workmen.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Shah submits that initially the order was passed by this Court allowing the petitions filed by the employer vide order dated 12.10.2021, which were challenged by the respondents - workmen by filing the intra Court appeals being LPA Nos. as under.
SCA No.8192 of 2021 LPA No.887 of 2022
SCA No.8204 of 2021 LPA No.892 of 2022
SCA No.8201 of 2021 LPA No.895 of 2022
SCA No.8190 of 2021 LPA No.893 of 2022
SCA No.8195 of 2021 LPA No.891 of 2022
SCA No.8186 of 2021 LPA No.896 of 2022
Wherein this Court, after considering the fact that the notices were issued, however, due to covid-19 pandemic, workmen could not appear before this Court and therefore, the Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8192/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined matter was remanded back to this Court for fresh consideration. Learned advocate Mr. Naidu submits that as employer has not maintained the seniority list of the workmen before retrenching therefore, the learned Reference Court is justifying in awarding the lump-sum compensation in lieu of the reinstatement as well as the back wages.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it emerges from the record that initially the petitions were filed before this Court by the employers, came to be allowed vide order dated 12.10.2021, which were challenged by the workmen by filing the LPAs and the same were allowed by the Division Bench of this Court and the matters were remanded back to this Court for fresh consideration. On perusing the impugned order, it emerges that learned Reference Court has concluded the reference by holding that there is no violation with regard to the provision of Section 25 F, G and H, however, relying on the Rule 81 of the Gujarat Industrial Disputes, the award of the compensation was passed. This Court has examined the reasons assigned by this Court while deposing of the matter on 12.10.2021, which is reproduced as Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8192/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined under;
"3. This Court has perused the impugned awards. A bare perusal of the award reveals that the Labour Court has held that the termination of the workmen is neither in violation of Section 25F of the ID Act nor any provisions of Sections 25G or 25H of the ID Act are violated. The Labour Court has set aside the termination order in view of Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 (for short 'the rules') which reads as under.
"81. Maintenance of seniority list of Workmen.-(1) The employer shall, prepare a list of all workmen in the particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated arranged according to the seniority of their service in that category and cause a copy thereof to be posted on a Notice Board in conspicuous place in the premises of the industrial establishment at least seven days before the actual date of retrenchment."
4. A bare perusal of the rule will clarify that the same pertains to the preparation of the seniority list of those workmen whose retrenchment is contemplated and accordingly, the same shall be effected looking to their seniority. In the present case, unquestionably, the retrenchment has been held to be valid and not in violation of any provisions of Section 25G or 25H of the ID Act. The provision of Rule 81 will not be attracted in the present case, in wake of the fact that the provisions of Sections 25G and 25H of the ID Act are not violated."
8. However, the concerned workmen for the below mentioned matters did not file any such appeals and had accepted the same.
1 SCA No.8184 of 2021
2. SCA No.8208 of 2021
3. SCA No.8198 of 2021 Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:20:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8192/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined
4. SCA No.17685 of 2021
9. This Court is of the view that when there is no violation of Section 25 F, G and H, no question arises for attracting the Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which is for maintaining the seniority list of the workmen whose retrenchment is contemplated. In absence of violation of Section 25 F, G and H, in the opinion of this Court, the Rule 81 of the Gujarat Industrial Disputes Rule, 1966 would not be applicable.
10. In that background, learned Labour Court has committed error in awarding the reference in favour of the respondents, hence present petitions deserve to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by learned reference Court dated 18.03.2020. These petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute.
11. Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in connected matters.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:20:44 IST 2025