Gujarat High Court
Rashmiben Prakashchandra Ganatra vs Manager, Narhari Hospital on 2 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11754/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11754 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5803 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
RASHMIBEN PRAKASHCHANDRA GANATRA
Versus
MANAGER, NARHARI HOSPITAL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHIKHA D PANCHAL(10764) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY(1060) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 02/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since the issue raised in the these petitions are similar, they are being decided by a common judgment. The facts of Special Civil Application No.11754 of 2022 are taken for the purpose of adjudication.
2. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 07.02.2023 passed by the learned Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference (T) (LCV) Case No.993 of 2012, whereby the Reference was partly allowed by awarding lump-sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the workman.
Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 00:46:17 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11754/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined
3. Gist of the case is that the workman was appointed as an Account Clerk in the respondent-Hospital with effect from 01.03.2006. She was thereafter promoted from time to time to higher posts, namely Store Keeper and Bill Clerk. Subsequently, she was reduced to a lower stage and posted in the Out-Patient Department (OPD). On 12.01.2012, a chargesheet was issued against her alleging misconduct of reporting late at the OPD counter and misbehaving with an elderly patient as well as with the Trustee, Shri Subhashbhai, and Dr. Kamal Pathak. Thereafter, on the basis of the chargesheet dated 12.01.2012 and a supplementary chargesheet dated 24.08.2012, a departmental inquiry was conducted, culminating in the dismissal of the workman from service with immediate effect on 25.08.2012.
3.1. Challenging the order of termination, the workman raised an industrial dispute under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act'). The dispute was referred by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Vadodara to the Labour Court for adjudication on the question as to whether the workman was entitled to reinstatement on her original post with back wages. The learned Labour Court, after framing five issues, partly allowed the Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 00:46:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11754/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined Reference by awarding lump-sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The said award has been challenged by the workman by filing Special Civil Application No.11754 of 2023 seeking reinstatement with back wages, and by the employer by filing Special Civil Application No.5803 of 2024 praying for quashment of the impugned award.
4. Heard the learned advocate Ms.Panchal for the petitioner and the learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay for the respondent.
5. Learned advocate Ms. Panchal, appearing for the workman, has submitted that though the charges of reporting late and misbehaving with the superior officers were not proved, during the course of evidence it emerged that the petitioner was not the only employee reporting late, as other employees were also not punctual in attending duty. However, without any justifiable reason, disciplinary proceedings were initiated only against the present workman. It is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Pachal that the petitioner was initially serving on the post of Store Keeper as well as Billing Clerk, but thereafter she was posted in the OPD Department, which is a lower post, with a reduction of Rs.1,000/- in her salary. Learned advocate Ms. Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 00:46:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11754/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined Panchal has further submitted that the natural voice of the petitioner is high in comparison to others and, therefore, even if she spoke peacefully, it was misconstrued as misbehavior on account of raising her voice. It is also contended that the departmental inquiry was illegal and invalid, and that the charges were not proved before the learned Tribunal by adducing proper evidence. However, instead of granting the relief of reinstatement with back wages, the learned Labour Court awarded only lump-sum compensation. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be interfered with by allowing the petition filed by the petitioner-workman.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Upadhyay, appearing for the employer, has submitted that the charges levelled against the respondent-workman were duly proved through cogent evidence and the deposition of the witnesses examined at Exhibits 110 to 124, 118 and 135. It is submitted that the petitioner was habitual in reporting late to the place of duty entrusted to her, and since her duty was in the OPD Department, due to negligence on her part, the patients visiting the hospital suffered considerable inconvenience. Learned advocate Mr. Upadhyay has further submitted that the workman had also misbehaved with the superior officer and, Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 00:46:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11754/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined therefore, it was a clear case of insubordination and gross negligence in the performance of duties. In spite of such misconduct, the learned Labour Court, instead of dismissing the Reference, has directed the employer to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is further submitted that in the chargesheet, specific allegations were made regarding deliberate disobedience and misbehavior with the superior officer, and during the course of adjudication, it was also established that the respondent-workman had misbehaved with the staff members of the hospital as well. However, by overlooking the said evidence, the learned Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the punishment imposed upon the workman was disproportionate to the charges levelled and, therefore, has awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- without assigning sufficient reasons. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petition filed by the employer deserves to be allowed.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon examining the reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court, it emerges that the statement of claim was filed before the learned Tribunal contending inter Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 00:46:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11754/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined alia that the workman was initially appointed on the post of Account Clerk with effect from 01.03.2006 and was thereafter promoted as Store Assistant and subsequently as Billing Clerk. Thereafter, she was reduced to a lower pay scale and posted in the OPD Department, where she was paid a monthly salary of Rs.6,085/-. Against the said reduction in pay scale, a complaint was filed before the Labour Officer by way of a recovery application dated 27.11.2012. It was the case of the workman that out of grudge for filing such complaint, a chargesheet came to be issued against her on 12.01.2012 alleging that she was reporting late and was misbehaving with the superior officer. One of the charges levelled was that she had submitted a false resume by mentioning incorrect educational qualifications. The workman had filed her reply to the said chargesheet on 23.01.2012 and thereafter participated in the departmental inquiry proceedings. Subsequently, a supplementary chargesheet also came to be issued on 29.05.2012. The learned Labour Court, vide order dated 29.04.2015, held that the departmental inquiry conducted against the workman was in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, declared the same as void and illegal.
8. To prove the charges levelled against the workman, Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 00:46:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11754/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined the employer examined four witnesses, namely, (i) Narendrabhai Jiwanlal Shah at Exhibit 110, (ii) Seemaben Modi at Exhibit 124, (iii) Kamalbhai Pathak at Exhibit 128, and (iv) Hemaben K. Patel at Exhibit
135. On referring to the deposition of Narendrabhai Jiwanlal Shah, who was serving as the Chief Operating Officer, it emerges that the workman was placed in a lower pay scale without initiation of any departmental inquiry or following due procedure. It is further admitted by this witness in his cross- examination that the workman was paid Rs.1,100/- less on account of reporting late at the OPD counter. He also admitted that, along with the workman, there were eight to ten other employees who also used to report late, but none of them were chargesheeted. He further admitted that no complaint was received regarding any misbehaviour with aged patients. The witness Seemaben Modi, who was serving in the Accounts Department as a Clerk, is a hearsay witness as she deposed regarding the chargesheet and alleged misbehaviour only on the basis of what she had heard from other employees. With regard to the suggestion of slapping the witnesses, she admitted that she herself had not made any complaint. The witness Kamalbhai Pathak, who was serving as Managing Trustee during the period from 05.10.2011 to 14.04.2017, was examined through the Court Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 00:46:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11754/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined Commissioner as, due to old age, he was unable to depose personally before the Court. From the cross- examination of this witness, it emerges that, upon receiving complaints against the workman Rashmiben, he considered it appropriate to give her an opportunity of hearing before taking any action. When the workman was called by this witness, she started raising her voice in the presence of one Subhash Dalal. The other witness, Hemaben Kanubhai Patel, who was the OPD In-charge at the relevant point of time, deposed that prior to being placed on the OPD Counter, the workman was serving as a Store Assistant and was receiving wages of Rs.7,513/-, which were reduced to Rs.6,014/- upon her posting at the OPD Counter. She admitted that no complaints were received against the workman for reporting late, and further admitted that along with the workman, two other employees, namely, Rekhaben and Vinodbhai, were also serving under her. She categorically admitted that no complaint was received against the workman Lakshmiben.
9. The workman has also examined herself at Exhibit 138 and produced several documentary evidences, including the pay slip reflecting deduction of salary on account of late reporting. From her deposition, it emerges that recovery applications were filed as her Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 00:46:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11754/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined pay scale had been reduced without following due procedure. With regard to the charge of furnishing incorrect educational qualification in the resume, she explained that the same was a typographical mistake, and that the relevant marksheets were already annexed with the resume. She admitted that a biometric machine was installed in the institution and that the timings of reporting and leaving were recorded therein. It further emerges from her evidence that there was some altercation between her and one employee, namely, Subhash Dalal, regarding taking leave. She also admitted that Dr. Kamal Pathak had called her on 06.01.2012, at which point of time said Subhash Dalal was also present, and she was called for the purpose of issuance of a memo.
10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Labour Court was justified in awarding lump-sum compensation. It is an admitted position that immediately after issuance of the chargesheet, the services of the employee came to be terminated. Insofar as the allegation of reporting late is concerned, it has already come on record that deductions were effected from her salary for such late reporting. With regard to the charge of Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 00:46:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11754/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined misbehaviour with the superior officer, no independent or contemporaneous complaint has been placed on record. Except for the deposition of Dr. Kamal Pathak, all other witnesses examined by the employer were hearsay in nature.
11. It is true that the proceedings under Section 33(C) (2) were initiated subsequent to the chargesheet. However, it emerges that upon raising a grievance regarding reduction of her pay scale, the workman was made a scapegoat. Owing to the strained relationship between the parties, the learned Labour Court was justified in awarding lump-sum compensation instead of granting the relief of reinstatement. Therefore, the petitions filed by both the employer as well as the employee do not warrant any interference.
12. Resultantly, both the petitions stand dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 00:46:17 IST 2025