Range Forest Officer vs Jayshankar Mahashankar Trivedi
2021 Latest Caselaw 3005 Guj

       C/SCA/15242/2013                                 JUDGMENT



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15242 of 2013


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

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

1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed             No
     to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                      No

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

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

==========================================================
                    RANGE FOREST OFFICER
                            Versus
           JAYSHANKAR MAHASHANKAR TRIVEDI & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. SOAHAM JOSHI, AGP (1) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK(63) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

                          Date : 22/02/2021

                          ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The petition has been filed by the original respondent challenging the award dated 6.3.2013 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar in reference (LCB) No. 13 of 2001 whereby the learned Labour Court has allowed the reference in favour of the respondent workman and directed reinstatement of

C/SCA/15242/2013 JUDGMENT

the workman with 70% backwages from 1.1.1996 along with consequential benefit payable to him within a period of 30 days from the date of the award.

2. Heard Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned AGP for the petitioner employer and Mr. Yogen Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent workman through video­conferencing.

3. Mr. Joshi, learned AGP submits that now the workman was reinstated in service as there was no stay against his reinstatement. He has submitted that the only question remains is regarding the order of the learned Labour Court granting 70% of the backwages to the workman. While referring to the petition memo as well as the materials placed on record, learned AGP has submitted that the learned Labour Court has committed serious error of fact and law in granting the order of reinstatement as well as granting 70% backwages to the workman. According to him, there is no reasons put provided by the learned Labour Court in granting 70% backwages. Learned AGP has submitted that the learned Labour Court has committed serious error of facts and law in granting the relief to the workman regarding reinstatement. He has also submitted that learned Labour Court has not considered the written statement placed on record by the Department and has not followed the various decisions rendered by this Court in various matters. According to him, there is perversity in the award passed by the learned Labour Court and has prayed to allow the present petition and set aside the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court in favour of the workman.

C/SCA/15242/2013 JUDGMENT

4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Yogen Pandya for the workman has vehemently supported the impugned award of the learned Labour Court. He has submitted that as per the observation made by the learned Labour Court, the juniors to the workman has been retained in the job, whereas services of the workman respondent has been terminated by the authority. He has also submitted that the defence put up by the Department that the workman has left the job on his own volition is not correct and same is not proved by the employer. He has also submitted that the learned Labour Court has examined the entire evidence on record and it has not committed any serious error of facts and law in granting order of reinstatement along with backwages of 70%. He has also submitted that there is no need of interference by this Court as the award is tenable in the eyes of law and has prayed to dismiss the present petition filed by the employer.

5. Having considered the submission on behalf of both the sides as well as materials placed on record, it is admitted fact that the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned award reinstating the workman and that portion of the award has already been complied with by the department as there was no stay against that order. It is admitted fact that interim stay was granted regarding 70% backwages. Having considered the statement of claim as well as written statement filed by the department, it clearly appears that the learned Labour Curt has properly appreciated the evidence on record regarding service of work for 310 days in the Calendar year April, 1994 to March, 1995 and has also considered the fact which

C/SCA/15242/2013 JUDGMENT

suggests that services of workman was terminated whereas his Juniors were retained. It also appears from the record that there was work available which the workman was doing in past. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that the learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar has not committed any serious error of fact and law in awarding the award of reinstatement and the order of the learned Labour Court to that extent does not require any interference.

6. However, on perusal of the impugned award, it appears that the learned Labour Court has not assigned any reason whatsoever for granting 70% backwages to the workman. There must be some basis for granting backwages to the workman. Now, in this case, since no reasoning has been assigned by the learned Labour Court in granting 70% backwages, it is necessary to examine whether the workman could have been granted 70% backwages in absence of any documentary evidence in support thereof. Having considered the entire materials on record and the impugned award of the learned Labour Court, it appears that the learned Labour Court has committed serious error of law in granting 70% backwages. Considering the facts that the alleged termination was on 1.8.1996 where Notice was issued first time by the workman to the employer on 16.8.2000 and the reference has been filed in the year 2001, there is every possibility that during this period the workman might have earned something. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that looking to the facts of the case, if backwages of 25%, is granted, it will meet the ends of justice. To that extent, the impugned award is required to be modified.

C/SCA/15242/2013 JUDGMENT

7. Resultantly, the present petition is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 6.3.2013 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar in reference (LCB) No. 13 of 2001 regarding reinstatement of the workman is hereby confirmed. However, the order of the learned Labour Court granting 70% backwages is hereby reduced to 25% with consequential benefits, which is payable from 1.1.1996, as mentioned in the order of the learned Labour Court. Such exercise be completed within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order. If backwages of 25% is not paid within 3 months, then it will carry 9% interest till realisation of the entire amount.

8. With aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

(DR. A. P. THAKER, J) SAJ GEORGE