Gujarat High Court
Legal Heirs Of Decesed Ramsing ... vs State Of Gujarat on 9 August, 2021
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/2253/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/08/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2253 of 2019
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 HEIRS OF DECESED RAMSING DALABHAI RATHAVA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N)(11) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. DHARMESH DEVNANI AGP for the respondent no.1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 09/08/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Dharmesh Devnani waives service of Rule on behalf of
the respondent-State.
C/SCA/2253/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/08/2021
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking
direction for setting aside the award dated 09.01.2018
passed in Reference LCG No.137 of 2010, whereby the
Labour Court, Godhra has granted a lump sum
compensation of Rs 75,000/- to the petitioner. It is not in
dispute that the above said award is not challenged by
the respondent authorities.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. P.C Chaudhari has submitted
that the husband of the petitioner was working as a
watchman and he was appointed as such on 01.02.1994
on a monthly salary of Rs 1,070/- and he was retrenched
on 10.09.1999 for want of grant. It is submitted that
thereafter, he passed away during the pendency of the
reference and, therefore, the present petitioner, being a
widow of the workman, was brought on record. Learned
Advocate Shri Chaudhari has submitted that the amount
of compensation of Rs 75,000/- is a meager, amount
looking to the continuous service of more than 5 years
and illegal termination.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Dharmesh Devnani has submitted that the impugned
award does not require any interference since looking to
the five years of service of the workman, the award
granting compensation of Rs 75,000/- is appropriate.
5. I have heard the learned Advocates for the
respective parties.
6. The impugned award granting compensation of Rs
C/SCA/2253/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/08/2021
75,000/- to the petitioner is not challenged by the
respondent authorities. The Labour Court has specifically
held that the termination of the deceased husband of the
petitioner was in violation of Section 25 F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and he was terminated for
the reason that there was no grant available with the
respondent authority. In the considered opinion of this
Court, looking to the reason of the termination of the
deceased husband of the petitioner i.e non-availability of
grant, the Labour Court has fallen in error in granting
compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the petitioner widow.
7. Thus, in wake of the peculiar reason of the
termination of the deceased husband of the petitioner,
the compensation of Rs. 75,000/- granted by the Labour
Court is not justified. Since the petitioner is a widow
aged about 54 years, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.
2,00,000/-. Thus, the petitioner would be entitled to an
enhanced amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- over and above Rs
75,000/- as awarded by the Labour Court. The respondent
authority is directed to pay the amount of compensation
to the petitioner within a period of 3 months, failing
which, the said amount shall carry an interest of 9% per
month.
8. This petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
MARY VADAKKAN
