Legal Heris Of Decesed Abhabhai ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 11225 Guj

     C/SCA/16107/2018                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 09/08/2021




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16107 of 2018


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
          LEGAL HERIS OF DECESED ABHABHAI MANABHAI KHANT
                                Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1
MR.DHARMESH DEVNANI AGP(1) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                                 Date : 09/08/2021

                                ORAL JUDGMENT

Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Devnani waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. In the present writ-petition the petitioner has challenged the award dated 08.03.2018 passed in

C/SCA/16107/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/08/2021

Reference (LCG) No. 72 of 2010 by the Labour Court, Godhra granting lump sum compensation of Rs 25,000/-. Learned Advocate Mr. Chaudhari has submitted that the workman, during the pendency of the reference has passed away in the year 2007 and thereafter, his heir was substituted. It is submitted that the amount of compensation of Rs.2,500/- is very meager amount looking to 15 years of service of the deceased workman. It is submitted by him that the compensation has been decided by the Labour Court looking to the wages of the workman, which was being to him paid in the year 1987 and1990.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Chaudhari has submitted that the aforesaid award is not challenged by the respondent authorities and hence, appropriate orders may be passed enhancing the compensation since the workman has passed away.

4. Learned AGP Mr. Devnani has submitted that the award may not be disturbed, since in the year 2002, the Reference was dismissed for non-prosecution and it was restored in the year 2010, after the workman passed away in the year 2007.

5. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. It is not in dispute that the impugned award is not challenged by the respondent authorities. The termination of the workman is set aside by the Labour Court on the ground that his termination was in violation of Sections 25 F and 25 H of the Industrial

C/SCA/16107/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/08/2021

Disputes Act, 1947. After setting aside his termination, the Labour Court has granted lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the workman which, in the considered opinion of this Court is too meager amount. The workman was employed in the year 1982 and thereafter his service was terminated on 22.07.1997 and the Labour Court has held that he was in continuous employment with the respondent authorities. In wake of the aforesaid finding, the Labour Court has fallen in error of awarding the compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. In order to by quietus to the litigation, it would be appropriate that the compensation is enhanced from Rs 25,000/- to Rs 3,00,000/-. Thus, the legal heir of the deceased workman, would be entitled to a compensation of total Rs 3,00,000/-. The respondent authorities are directed to pay an amount of compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the present petitioner who is heir of the deceased workman, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the present order. It is clarified that if the said amount is not paid within the period specified by this Court, the same would carry a monthly interest of 9%.

6. This petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) MARY VADAKKAN