Gujarat High Court
Arvindsinh Kesarsinh Vaghela vs Additional Chief Conservator Of ... on 27 September, 2021
Bench: A. P. Thaker
C/LPA/634/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 634 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17430 of 2018
==========================================================
ARVINDSINH KESARSINH VAGHELA
Versus
ADDITIONAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST ( PMU )
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MEHTA, AGP (1) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER
Date : 27/09/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr.U.T. Mishra for
the petitioner and learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr.Manan Mehta for the respondent.
2. In this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause
15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant-original
petitioner seeks to call in question judgment and
order dated 29th June, 2021 of learned Single Judge
dismissing the Special Civil Application, in turn
confirming the judgment and award of the Labour
Court, Ahmedabad dated 30th April, 2018 in Reference
(T) No.7 of 2015, whereby Reference of the appellant-
workman was partially allowed and instead of granting
reinstatement, lump sum compensation of Rs.75,000/-
was awarded to the workman. In the Special Civil
Application, the said judgment and award was prayed
to be set aside.
C/LPA/634/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021
3. It appears that the appellant was engaged as
rojamdar driver in the office of Additional Chief
Conservator of Forests. He was paid Rs.192/- as daily
wage. Putting forth the case that in each year of
service, 240 days were completed, the workman invoked
jurisdiction of Labour Court seeking reinstatement,
as his services came to be terminated with effect
from 02nd March, 2013.
3.1 While appreciating the case and the prayer
for reinstatement of the workman on the basis of oral
and documentary evidence before it, the Labour Court
proceeded to take a view that in the totality of
facts, relief of reinstatement was not liable to be
granted, but instead, lump sum compensation
quantified at Rs.75,000/- would serve the interest of
justice. Labour Court relied on decision of the
Supreme Court in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan
Development Corporation v. Gitam Singh [(2013) 5 SCC
136] to take note of the principle laid down therein
that it is not an absolute proposition that in cases
of wrongful dismissal, the workman would be entitled
to reinstatement in all situations. Where
reinstatement is not considered expedient,
compensation could be directed to be paid, held the
Supreme Court. In that case, daily wager had
completed services for eight months. The learned
Single Judge of the High Court as well as Division
Bench had confirmed the reinstatement with 25% back
wages, which was excepted by the Supreme Court to
observe and held that lump sum compensation of
Rs.50,000/- would sub-serve the justice.
C/LPA/634/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021
3.2 Having considered the nature of engagement
of the workman in service, length of service, details
of wages paid and all other attendant circumstances,
Labour Court awarded lump sum compensation as above.
4. While dealing with the Special Civil
Application questioning the said judgment and award,
learned Single Judge delved into series of judgments
of the Apex Court as well as of this Court, which
reiterated the principle that wrongful dismissal of
workman may not necessarily entail reinstatement in
all cases and that reinstatement is not a rule of
thumb. Learned Single Judge ultimately upheld the
judgment and award of the Labour Court which had
granted lumpsum amount, to dismiss the petition.
5. We have carefully gone through the judgment
and award of the Labour Court and the impugned
judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. From
the facts of the case, we notice that the appellant-
workman was a driver. The nature of his engagement
was as daily wager. He was paid Rs.192/- per day. He
worked from April, 2009 to 02nd March, 2013. Thus, the
workman only put in four years of service. Eight
years have passed by since then. The appellant would
be seeking reinstatement in the year 2021. Learned
Single Judge has taken into consideration an
additional aspect that engagement of the appellant
was not by undertaking regular procedure of
recruitment under the rules.
5.1 The nature of employment, length of service,
C/LPA/634/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021
salary paid, mode of employment and the time lag
which has intervened since the date of termination of
service, are all relevant aspects for considering
whether lumpsum compensation in place of
reinstatement could be proper relief. In the present
case, all these aspects are attended to, to arrive at
the alternative relief of paying lumpsum amount as
compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
6. In the facts of the case, the judgment and
order of the learned Single Judge confirming the
judgment and award of the Labour Court could be said
to be eminently just, proper and legal. It requires
no interference in exercise of the Letters Patent
jurisdiction.
7. The Letters Patent Appeal is meritless and
is summarily dismissed. Notice discharged.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(DR. A. P. THAKER, J)
ANUP
