Thakor Kadvaji Jashvantji vs Executive Engineer
2021 Latest Caselaw 13200 Guj

     C/LPA/614/2021                            ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 614 of 2021

           In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4486 of 2015

                                 With

              R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 615 of 2021
                                  In
              SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4487 of 2015

                                 With

              R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 616 of 2021
                                  In
              SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4488 of 2015

                                 With

              R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 617 of 2021
                                  In
              SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4489 of 2015
==========================================================
                      THAKOR CHANDANJI CHEHUJI
                               Versus
                         EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY(1060) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent
- State
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
           JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
           and
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                           Date : 02/09/2021

                            ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI)

1. By way of this group of Letters Patent Appeals, the

appellants herein - original petitioners have challenged

C/LPA/614/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021

the order dated 12.02.2018 passed in the respective

petitions filed by them, whereby while disposing of the

petitions, the learned Single Jude was pleased to issue

direction that the appellants - original petitioners be paid

sum of Rs.45,000/- by the present respondent towards

lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

1.1 Since the facts as well as the issues involved in all

these appeals are identical, all these four appeals are

heard together and are being decided together, by this

common judgment and order.

2. Learned advocate Mr.Prabhakar Upadhyay as well as

learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Megha Chitaliya

both have consented for taking up all four matters

together and to hear and decide it finally and hence all

these appeals are heard and decided finally.

3. On 26.8.2021, this Court passed the following order.

"Heard Mr.Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned advocate for the appellants and Ms.Megha Chitaliya, learned AGP for the respondents.

Considering the issue involved in these appeals as regards quantum of lumsum compensation, Mr.Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned advocate for the appellants prayed that the matter be taken up for final

C/LPA/614/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021

disposal. Mr.Upadhyay has also argued only on the aspect of enhancement on the quantum of lumsum compensation.

Heard for final disposal. For orders."

3.1 As can be seen from the aforesaid order, since

learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay has confined these

appeals only to the extent of enhancement of the amount

of lumpsum compensation, the matters are heard and

decided keeping in mind this limited aspect only.

3.2 For the purpose of deciding this group of appeals,

Letters Patent Appeal No.614 of 2021 is treated as a lead

matter and facts of Letters Patent Appeal No.614 of 2021

are considered for adjudicating the issue on hand.

4. Brief fact giving rise to the filing of present Letters

Patent Appeal is stated as under:

4.1 It is the case of the petitioner of Special Civil

Application No.4486 of 2015 that he was appointed as

Labourer in September, 1987 by the present respondent

and from September, 1987 till 31.03.1998 he worked

regularly and continuously with the respondent till his

services were terminated orally and illegally by the

C/LPA/614/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021

respondent, without following due procedure of law as well

as without complying with the principles of natural justice.

At the time when his services were terminated, he was

paid sum of Rs.61.90 per day towards daily wages. After

the termination of the present appellant in the year 1998,

after delay of 10 years he raised industrial dispute which

culminated into Reference (LCP) No.12 of 2009 whereby

he prayed for reinstatement with back-wages.

4.2 The Labour Court, Palanpur, after considering the

material on record and evidence adduced by the

respective parties, on appreciation of material on record

as well as the evidence, rejected the Reference of the

present appellant vide award dated 22.09.2014. While

rejecting the Reference preferred by the present

appellant, the learned Labour Judge, Palanpur arrived at a

specific finding that the present appellant did not work for

more than 240 days in each year from the year 1988 to

1997. Not only that, except for once, in no other year the

present appellant worked for 240 days under the

respondent and in a year preceding the termination of the

present appellant also the appellant did not work for 240

C/LPA/614/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021

days. The Labour Court also arrived at conclusion that

there is no breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 ('ID Act', for short) and ultimately rejected the

Reference of the present appellant.

4.3 The appellant challenged the said award dated

22.09.2014 passed by the learned Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Palanpur in Reference (LCB) No.12 of 2009

by filing Special Civil Application No.4486 of 2015. The

said writ petition was heard by the learned Single Judge

and while passing the order dated 12.02.2018, the learned

Single Judge took into consideration two undisputed facts

i.e. (i) that the present appellant was relieved in light of

policy decision of the State Government vide Government

Resolution issued in the month of March, 1998 and (ii) that

the claimant raised the dispute in the year 2009 i.e.

almost after 10 years after he was relieved from the

services. The learned Single Judge also took into

consideration the fact that claimant i.e. the present

appellant failed to place any material on record to support

his claim with regard to his attendance and to establish

that the details, which the respondent placed on record

C/LPA/614/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021

were incorrect, and that he actually worked for 240 days

in preceding 12 months of his termination. In fact, the

learned Single Judge observed that during the tenure of 09

years from the year 1988 to 1997, it was only one phase

of 12 months during which the present appellant worked

for 240 days or more days. Even otherwise, during the

most phase of 12 months, the appellant worked for less

than 240 days. Even during the relevant period i.e.

preceding of twelve months of his termination also he

worked for less than 240 days. The learned Single Judge

also confirmed the finding of the Labour Court in respect

of the fact that respondent, by issuing notice of

termination, has not violated the provisions of Sections

25F of the 'ID Act'. The learned Single Judge also

considered the case of the present appellant by

considering the aspect whether the provisions of Section

25G of the 'ID Act' has been violated or not and found that

there is no material on record to indicate that provisions of

Section 25G of the 'ID Act' or Rule 81 of the Rules framed

thereunder are violated.

4.4 Considering the aforesaid aspects, the learned Single

C/LPA/614/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021

Judge, coupled with the fact that the Reference was

preferred after unexplained delay of more than 10 years,

disposed of the petition by awarding lumpsum

compensation of Rs.45,000/- in lieu of reinstatement to be

paid by the respondent to the present appellant vide four

separate orders, in each of the petition, dated 12.02.2018.

It is those orders which are subject matter of appeal

before this Court by way of present appeals.

5. As stated hereinabove, learned advocate

Mr.Upadhyay has confined these appeals only for the

purpose of enhancement of lumpsum compensation

awarded by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, in

view of the aforesaid limited aspect, he submitted that

even if it is assumed, without admitting, that the present

appellants have not worked for more than 240 days in

each year, except for one year and they did not work for

more than 240 days in the presiding year of their

termination, then also considering their length of service,

the amount of compensation awarded is too meager.

Learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay submitted that all the

present appellants have put in around 10 years' services

C/LPA/614/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021

under the respondent and, therefore, irrespective of the

fact as to whether they have served for 240 days or not in

each year, only length of their services is considered then

also lumpsum compensation of RS.45,000/- cannot be said

to be adequate compensation. He submitted that looking

to the length of services of the present appellants, they

deserve to be paid at least a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs in

respect of each of the present appellant as lumpsum

compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Megha

Chitaliya vehemently opposed these appeals and by

referring the award passed by the Labour Court, Palanpur

as well as judgment dated 12.02.2018 passed by the

learned Single Judge submitted that, in fact the present

appellants, if the evidence are appreciated stricto senso,

are not entitled to compensation of Rs.45,000/-. She

submitted that the Labour Court as well as learned Single

Judge have specifically arrived at conclusion that there is

no breach of provisions of Sections 25F and 25G of the

'I.D.Act' and that the present appellants have not

completed 240 days in a year preceding their termination

C/LPA/614/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021

and during 9 years which according to workmen they have

worked under the present respondent, during that time

also, except for one year, in no other year they have

worked for more than 240 days. When the appellants

could not produce any material in their favour, either

before the Labour Court or before the Learned Single

Judge, they are not entitled to any compensation at all,

more particularly when the dispute was raised after more

than 10 years after the termination of the present

appellants. However, considering the totality of the

circumstances, the learned Single Judge awarded sum of

Rs.45,000/- to be paid to each of the present appellant

towards lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement

and, therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge

is absolutely just, legal and proper and the present

appeals deserve to be dismissed.

7. Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for

the respective parties, having perused the order passed

by the Labour Court as well as by the learned Single

Judge, the record of Special Civil Application and having

considered the evidence on record, we have noticed

C/LPA/614/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021

certain facts, which have come on record and which the

learned advocate for the appellants could not dispute by

placing on record any evidence contrary to the facts that

the present appellants though have worked for around 9

years or more under the respondent except for one year,

they did not work for more than 240 days under the

respondent. Same way, none of them also worked for

more than 240 days in a year preceding the year of their

termination. They also could not establish that while

terminating their services the respondent has committed

breach of Sections 25F and 25G of the 'ID Act' and Rule 81

of the Rules framed thereunder and, therefore, as far as

those findings of the Labour Court, which are confirmed by

the learned Single Judge, are concerned, we are in

complete agreement with the findings recorded by the

Labour Court as confirmed by learned Single Judge and we

do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the same.

However, as far as aspect of lumpsum compensation is

concerned, though the learned Single Judge was right in

awarding lumpsum compensation, on overall

consideration of the facts of the case, we are of the view

C/LPA/614/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021

that the compensation of Rs.45,000/- awarded by the

learned Single Judge is required to be enhanced to Rs.1

lakh looking to the totality of the facts and ends of justice

would be served if the compensation is enhanced to Rs.1

lakh to be paid to the present appellants by the present

respondent. Such enhanced compensation of Rs.1 lakh be

paid to the present appellants, within a period of 12 weeks

from the date of this order.

8. With the aforesaid direction the present appeals

stand disposed of with no order as to costs.

(THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA, J)

(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) MISHRA AMIT V.