Sharadbabu Hospital Dr. Babulal L ... vs Ruthben Stevenson Christian
2021 Latest Caselaw 18371 Guj

      C/SCA/7100/2008                             JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2021



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7100 of 2008

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA                                  Sd/-
================================================================
1      Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
       to see the judgment ?                                           NO

2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                        YES

3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
       of the judgment ?                                               NO

4      Whether this case involves a substantial question
       of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution             NO
       of India or any order made thereunder ?

================================================================
         SHARADBABU HOSPITAL DR. BABULAL L DESAI DECEASED
                              Versus
                  RUTHBEN STEVENSON CHRISTIAN
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AK CLERK(235) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MRS NISHA M PARIKH(2397) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                             Date : 14/12/2021
                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1. While issuing Rule vide order dated 29.09.2008, this Court had ordered to stay the operation, implementation of the award dated 26.12.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.128 of 1994.

2. The petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of one Dr.Babulal L. Desai, who was running Sharadbabu Hospital at Satyamnagar, Rakhial, Ahmedabad. In the hospital, there were five persons employed as Nurse including the respondent. It is the case of the

C/SCA/7100/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2021

respondent that she was orally terminated on 29.07.1993. She raised industrail dispute, which culminated into Reference LCA No.128 of 1994. By the impugned award dated 26.12.2007, the Labour Court directed the present petitioners to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent.

3. Learned advocate Mr.A.K.Clerk appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in fact the petitioners could not have been held liable to pay lump-sum compensation since the respondent was employed by the late Dr. Babulal L. Desai. While referring to the deposition of the respondent, he has submitted that she has admitted that the hospital was being run by the late Dr. Babulal L. Desai and the petitioners, who are legal heirs of the said doctor cannot be held responsible for granting compensation. While referring to the impugned award, learned advocate Mr.Clerk has submitted that in fact the finding has been recorded by the Labour Court to the effect that the employer of respondent was late Dr. Babulal L. Desai and the compensation has been only awarded to the respondent by holding that no departmental inquiry was held before orally terminating her. He has submitted that in fact the respondent had voluntarily left the hospital, which has been admitted by her in her deposition that after 02.10.1993, she did not go for service. It is also submitted that the Labour Court has passed the impugned award against the petitioners on the premise that the petitioners, who are legal heirs of the deceased doctor were unable to produce any documentary evidence showing that the hospital, after the death of the Dr. Babulal L. Desai was not being run by them or it was closed. It is submitted that assuming that such documents are not brought on record, it is not denied that the petitioners were legal heirs of the doctor and the respondent was employed by him and there could not have been any master and servant

C/SCA/7100/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2021

relationship between the legal heirs and the respondent. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned award may be set aside.

4. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mrs.Nisha Parikh, while referring to the deposition of the son of the deceased i.e. the petitioner no.4-Dr.Sandipbhai Babulal Desai, has submitted that in fact in his cross-examination, he has admitted that after the death of Dr.Babulal L. Desai, the hospital was being taken care of by his mother and when the hospital was sold, the entire sale proceedings were taken by his mother and hence, the direction issued by the Labour Court with regard to payment of compensation may not be disturbed.

4.1 Learned advocate Mrs.Nisha Parikh has further referred to the deposition of the respondent no.1, in which she has specifically stated that the respondent has been relieved from service on 29.07.1993 by the late Dr. Babulal L. Desai. It is further submitted by her that in fact some settlement was also being undertaken between the Dr. Babulal L. Desai and the respondent, and accordingly, she had reported on 02.10.1993 however, when she demanded the remaining salary, at that time Dr.Sandipbhai Babulal Desai-petitioner, was also present along with his father Dr. Babulal L. Desai. It is further submitted by her that the respondent had specifically stated that the petitioner no.4 i.e. Dr. Sandipbhai Babulal Desai had pushed her and threatened her on 02.10.1993. She has submitted that in her deposition the respondent has deposed that in 1995, the hospital was still in operation, however, she was not allowed to resume the duties. In this view of the matter, it is argued by learned advocate Ms.Parikh that the award passed by the Labour Court may not be disturbed.

C/SCA/7100/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2021

5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. The relevant documents are also perused.

6. From the deposition of the respondent no.1 at Exh.8, it is manifest that the respondent was employed as a Nurse by late Dr. Babulal L. Desai in his hospital and she has admitted that the Sharadbabu Hospital was owned by the Dr.Babulal L. Desai. It is her case, she has been orally terminated on 29.07.1993 without holding any inquiry or giving any show cause notice. The industrial dispute was raised by her, which culminated into Reference LCA No.128 of 1994. During the pendency of the said reference, late Dr. Babulal L. Desai passed away and the present petitioners were arraigned as the party respondents being the legal heirs of late Dr. Babulal L. Desai. From the documents and the evidence, which has surfaced the Labour Court has in fact held that the late Dr. Babulal L. Desai was the employer of the respondent and the hospital was also in his name and it was run by him. However, a finding has been recorded against the present petitioners on the ground that no documentary evidence was produced with regard to closing of hospital till the year 1999 and in view of the said finding, the Labour Court has directed the petitioners to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

7. In the considered opinion of this Court, such directions of payment of compensation are misconceived in wake of the fact that there is no employer and employee relationship between the present petitioners and the respondent. The respondent was employed by the late Dr. Babulal L. Desai and his liability arising out of any violation of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not bind the present petitioners, who are legal heirs and the same has to be confined to the employer i.e. Dr. Babulal L. Desai. The Labour Court by issuing such directions has

C/SCA/7100/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2021

fastened the liability on the present petitioners as if they were the employers of the respondent and they are responsible for the illegal termination. When there is no evidence with regard to the employee- employer relationship between the petitioners and the respondent- workman, such directions were uncalled for. It is trite that an employee has a direct nexus with regard to his service with the employer and similarly if any misconduct is committed by the employee or there is any adverse orders passed affecting the service of an employee, the concerned employer can be said to be liable for such action and not his legal heirs, who are not directly or indirectly connected with the employment of such employee.

8. Under the circumstances, the present writ petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute. The impugned award dated 26.12.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.128 of 1994 is quashed and set aside.

9. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Labour Court.

Sd/-

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) ABHISHEK