Gujarat High Court
Somabhai Malabhai Talar vs Deputy Executive Engineer (Road ... on 7 September, 2021
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/15515/2019 ORDER DATED: 07/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15515 of 2019
==========================================================
SOMABHAI MALABHAI TALAR
Versus
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ROAD AND BUILDING)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 07/09/2021
ORAL ORDER
1) In the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated
01.11.2018 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 109
of 2012 to the extent of not directing the respondent authority for
reinstatement and instead granting the compensation of Rs.3,25,000/-.
2) Learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave appearing for the petitioner has
submitted that the reinstatement is denied by the Labour Court only on
the ground that he is retired from the service. He has submitted that the
aforesaid view is erroneous since the petitioner is entitled to the benefits
of various resolutions, more particularly, resolution dated 17.10.1988, if
the award of reinstatement have been passed. He has submitted that the
workmen not claim any back wages.
3) In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the
judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil
Application No 22362 of 2019 and allied matters dated 20.01.2020. A
reliance is placed by him on the order of the Division Bench of this Court
dated 17.10.2019 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1727 of 2019. He
has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench
in the case of Kalamudding M. Ansari v Government of India dated
C/SCA/15515/2019 ORDER DATED: 07/09/2021
18.04.2016 reported in 2016 (3) GLH 323. It is pertinent to note that
during the pendency of the writ petition, the workman has expired and the
writ petition has been persued by his legal heirs. Thus, he has submitted
that the award of the Labour Court may be modified.
4) Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Shastri has submitted that the the
petitioner would not be entitled for any relief and the order passed by the
Labour Court is just and proper.
5) I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned
advocates appearing for the respective parties and has perused the award
passed by the Labour Court.
6) It is not in dispute that the workman had rendered 23 years of
service and he was terminated from service in violation of Section 25 F,
G and H of the Industrial Dispute Act. After holding everything in favour
of the workman, the Labour Court has finally directed the respondent
authorities to pay compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- in lieu of reinstatement
only for the reason that the workman had reached the age of
superannuation.
7) In the considered opinion of this Court, the view expressed by the
Labour Court is erroneous and against the settled principles of law. The
workman cannot be granted compensation only because he has retired
from service. In case, the compensation is granted in lieu of
reinstatement, the workman would be denied the benefits the scheme of
government introduced vide Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988
and he would be deprived of any regular pay and pensionary benefits. In
the present case, the workman has expired during the pendency of the
writ petition and hence, there would not be any question of reinstatement,
C/SCA/15515/2019 ORDER DATED: 07/09/2021
however, his legal heirs have persued the present writ petition. If the
workman is ordered to be treated in service with continuity without back
wages his heirs will be entitled to all consequential benefits. His pay shall
accordingly be fixed.
8) Since the Court finds that this is an error, which is crept in the
award passed by the Labour Court, the impugned award dated 01.11.2018
passed by the Labour Court, Godhra is modified to the extent that the
respondent authorities are directed to treat the workman as continuous in
service till the date of superannuation i.e. in the year 2016. However, he
will not be entitled to back wages.
9) The award granting lump sum compensation is hereby quashed and
set aside. The respondents are directed to grant all the benefits treating his
entire service from the date of termination till his superannuation as
continuous. The consequential benefits shall be paid to his legal heirs. It
is clarified that while fixing and granting the consequential benefits, the
respondents are directed to examine the case of the workman in light of
the government resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the decision of the Apex
Court in case of the State of Gujarat and Ors. vs. PWD Employees Union
and Ors., reported in (2013) 12 SCC 417.
10) Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
11) Necessary orders shall be passed within the period of three months
from the date of receipt of the order of this Court.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
VISHAL MISHRA
