Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Induben Arvindbhai Parmar on 2 August, 2021
Bench: Mr. Justice R.M.Chhaya, Nirzar S. Desai
C/LPA/316/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/08/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 316 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19535 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 316 of 2021
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
INDUBEN ARVINDBHAI PARMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
Ms. Megha Chitaliya, Asst. GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 02/08/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)
1.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order dated 18.09.2020 passed by the
learned Single Judge (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Biren Vaishnav) in Special Civil Application
No.19535 of 2017, the State has preferred this
intra Court Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters
Patent.
2.0. The following facts emerge from the record of
the appeal:
2.1. That the respondent workman was working as a
Peon on monthly salary of Rs.900/- with the
appellant without any break from 1996 to 2001.
That on 8.3.2001 abruptly the services of the
C/LPA/316/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/08/2021
respondent workman came to be discontinued
without any prior notice or without payment of
notice pay on 08.03.2001. The respondent workman
raised the dispute, which came to be registered
as Reference (LCJ) No. 343 of 2001 before the
Labour Court, Jamnagar under Section 10(1)(C) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Act" for the sake of
brevity). The record indicates that the appellant
did not file any reply in response to the notice
issued by the Labour Court and hence right to
file reply was closed and ultimately by judgment
and award dated 26.09.2008 the Reference was
allowed and the respondent workman was directed
to be reinstated with 35% back wages. The said
award came to be challenged by the appellant by
way of filing writ petition being Special Civil
Application No. 1756 of 2009, which was allowed
by this Court vide order dated 27.02.2009 and
this Court was pleased to remit the matter for
reconsideration on the ground that the appellant
be given an opportunity of hearing and also
imposed cost of Rs.2000/-. On such remand, the
Labour Court proceeded further de-novo. The
respondent workman was examined at Exh.17 and one
Khalid Ahmed Kureshi was examined on behalf of
the appellant at Exh.49 and both the parties
relied upon the documentary evidence. Issue came
to be framed and the learned Labour Court
C/LPA/316/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/08/2021
appreciating the oral evidence of Mr. Khalid
Kureshi at Exh.49, more particularly, cross
examination as well as documentary evidence such
as attendance register at Exh.51, came to the
conclusion that the respondent workman has
continuously work for five years. The Labour
Court after appreciation of evidence on record
arrived at a finding of fact that services of the
respondent workman has been illegally terminated,
however did not grant any back wages. Against the
judgment and award passed by the Labour Court,
the appellant preferred writ petition being
Special Civil Application No.19535 of 2017. The
learned Single Judge considering the finding of
fact arrived at by the learned Labour Court came
to the conclusion that no interference is called
for and being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
same, the present appeal is filed.
3.0. Heard Ms. Megha Chitaliya, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the appellant. Ms.
Chitaliya, learned AGP has taken this Court to
the impugned judgment and award as well as
judgment of the learned Single Judge and has
contended that considering the respondent workman
has worked only for five years instead of
reinstatement, the learned Single Judge ought to
have awarded any lump sum compensation. It was
also submitted by Ms. Chitaliya, learned AGP that
C/LPA/316/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/08/2021
the learned Single Judge has failed to consider
the fact that for 20 long years, the respondent
workman was out of service. On the aforesaid
ground, it was contended that appeal requires
consideration and same may be allowed as prayed
for.
4.0. No other and further submissions/
contention / grounds have been made by the
learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
appellant.
5.0. Having perused the judgment and award of the
Labour Court, it clearly transpires that it is
the evidence of the appellant themselves that the
respondent workman has continuously worked for a
period of five years from 1996 to 2001. The
Labour Court has also correctly appreciated the
evidence on record and has correctly arrived at a
finding of fact that termination of the
respondent workman is illegal and there is breach
of provision of Section 25 F of the Act. The
contention raised by the learned AGP that instead
of reinstatement lump sum compensation needs to
be awarded, is without any basis. No evidence is
led by the appellant before the Labour Court
contrary to the same. On the contrary, it appears
that from the evidence which is made basis of the
conclusion arrived at by the learned Labour
C/LPA/316/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/08/2021
Court, it clear appears that same is based on
cogent evidence and in a way admission on the
part of the appellant. The contention that it has
taken 20 years, is of no avail to the appellant.
As can be seen from the factual background
arising in this appeal, services of the
respondent workman came to be illegally
terminated on 8.3.2001 and the reference was
filed by the respondent workman immediately in
2001. The conduct of the appellant indicates that
till 2008 when the award was passed for the first
time, no steps were taken by the appellant and
after the matter was remitted back by this Court
vide order dated 27.02.2009, the Reference was
heard and finally disposed of on 10.02.2017 and
therefore, time taken before the competent Court,
cannot be a reason or basis of granting lump sum
compensation instead of reinstatement. No case
for interference is made out by the appellant.
This Court is of the opinion that findings of
fact arrived at by the Labour Court are based on
correct appreciation of the evidence on record
and the learned Single Judge has committed no
error in confirming the same. We are in complete
agreement with the view taken by the learned
Single Judge and in appeal no other view needs to
be taken in facts of this case. No case is made
out for interference. Appeal being meritless and
deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly
C/LPA/316/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/08/2021
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
As appeal is dismissed, connected Civil
Application also stands dismissed.
sd/-
(R.M.CHHAYA, J)
sd/-
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
KAUSHIK J. RATHOD
