Gujarat High Court
Hotel Rahi vs Rohit Jagdishbhai K on 21 April, 2022
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
C/SCA/21808/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21808 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2017
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21808 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21809 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2017
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21809 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21811 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2017
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21811 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21812 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2017
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21812 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21813 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2017
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21813 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21814 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2017
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21814 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
Page 1 of 9
Downloaded on : Wed Apr 27 20:24:50 IST 2022
C/SCA/21808/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2022
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
HOTEL RAHI
Versus
ROHIT JAGDISHBHAI K. & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRABHAKAR UPADHYAY WITH MR AAKASH D MODI(7449) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RAJESH P MANKAD(2637) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 21/04/2022
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. All these petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India in which the petitioners have challenged the
awards dated 25.5.2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Vadodara in respective Reference Cases filed by the respondent workman
of the respective petitions. As the issue involved in all these petitions is
common, learned advocates for the parties jointly requested that all these
petitions be heard together and be decided finally at admission stage.
2. Rule. Learned advocate Mr.Mankad waives service of notice
of rule for respondent workman in each of the petition.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts narrated in Special
Civil Application No.21808 of 2017 are considered. It is the case of the
petitioner that the respondent workman was working with the petitioner
C/SCA/21808/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2022
as waiter/room service man and in fact the respondent workman stopped
coming to the petitioner hotel from 11.12.2010. Thereafter, the
respondent through Union, approached the Labour Officer with certain
grievance. It is submitted that dispute was raised which was referred to
the Labour Court, Vadodara and registered as Reference Case No.118 of
2011. It is further submitted that the present petitioner produced
documentary as well as oral evidence before the Labour Court and
thereafter the Labour Court by way of impugned award dated 25.5.2017
directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman with 30%
back wages. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay appearing for the petitioner
challenged the impugned award initially by filing petition being Special
Civil Application No.19799 of 2017 and allied matters before this Court.
However, the said petitions were withdrawn on 6.11.2017. It is pointed
out from the record that liberty was granted by this Court to the petitioner
to file fresh petitions. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present
petitions.
4.1 It is also pointed out that during the pendency of the present
petitions, the concerned respondent workmen have been reinstated and
therefore this Court has observed in the order dated 24.9.2019 about the
said aspect. However, it is the case of the petitioner that though the
concerned respondent workmen have been reinstated, now they have
stopped coming to the petitioner hotel. It is also submitted that now the
dispute is mainly with regard to the back wages and other benefits which
are to be given to the respondent workman.
4.2 Learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay has referred to the
C/SCA/21808/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2022
impugned award passed by the Labour Court and contended that though
the concerned respondent workmen are not entitled to get any back
wages, back wages are awarded to the concerned workmen. Learned
advocate Mr.Upadhyay has pointed out from the record that so far as the
respondent workman in Special Civil Application No.21808 of 2017 is
concerned, he was working with one Tulsi Hotels Pvt.Ltd. from July,
2013 and he has worked upto 2018. He was getting Rs.6000/- per month,
copy of the said certificate is placed on record at page no.43 of the
compilation in the said matter.
4.3 Learned advocate, therefore, urged that the said respondent
workman is not entitled to get any monetary benefit. Learned advocate
Mr.Upadhyay, thereafter, placed on record separate chart from which it is
contended that so far as the respondent of petition being Special Civil
Application No.21813 of 2017 is concerned, at present, he is running a
catering business in the name of Jyoti Catering Service whereas the
respondent of Special Civil Application No.21814 of 2017 is concerned,
he is working in construction business. Thus, the said respondent
workmen are not entitled to get any monetary benefits.
4.4 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that even
assuming that the findings recorded by the Labour Court in the impugned
award are correct that the petitioner has violated the provisions contained
in Sections 25F and 25G of the I.D.Act, even then, the order of
reinstatement is not automatic and in lieu of reinstatement and back
wages, lumpsum compensation can be awarded. Learned advocate has
placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Vashrambhai Dhanabhai Vegad V/s State of Gujarat
reported in (2017)2 SCC 508. Learned advocate for the petitioner,
C/SCA/21808/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2022
therefore, urged that the impugned award be quashed and set aside or
alternatively, lumpsum compensation can be awarded to the respondent
workman looking to the facts of the present case.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Mankad has, under
the instructions, submitted that if the lumpsum compensation is awarded
to the respondent workman in lieu of reinstatement, back wages and other
monetary benefits which are available to the respondent workman, the
concerned respondent workmen are satisfied.
5.1 Learned advocate for the respondent workmen has placed on
record separate chart/statement showing the details of the present
petitions in which the amount receivable by the concerned respondent
workman is specifically stated. It is submitted that as per the award, the
respondent workmen are entitled to 30% back wages for the period
between 11.12.1010 to 30.6.2017 and after passing of the award by the
Labour Court, they are entitled to get full regular wages from 1.7.2017 to
23.9.2019. It is also submitted that the respondent workman is also
entitled to get the gratuity amount from the date of their appointment till
today.
5.2 On merits, learned advocate Mr.Mankad has submitted that
the Labour Court has, after considering the documentary as well as the
oral evidence produced before it, specifically recorded the finding that the
petitioner has violated the mandatory provisions contained in Sections
25F and 25G of the I.D.Act and therefore no error is committed by the
Labour Court while passing the impugned award by which the direction
was given to the petitioner to reinstate the concerned respondent
workmen with 30% back wages. Learned advocate has also submitted
C/SCA/21808/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2022
that some of the respondent workmen have worked with the petitioner
hotel for more than 13 years and therefore if this Court is inclined to
modify the award passed by the Labour Court, reasonable amount of
compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back wages and other benefits be
granted.
5.3 I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned
advocates appearing for the parties and gone through the material placed
on record. From the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, it is
revealed that the respondent workman has given the deposition vide
Exh.12 and also produced the documentary evidence. The petitioner has
also filed written statement Exh.6 and on the application submitted by the
respondent workman vide Exh.10 demanding certain documents, the
petitioner produced documents vide Exh.11. After considering the
documentary as well as oral evidence produced before the Labour Court,
the Labour Court has specifically recorded the finding in paragraph 10
that the petitioner has violated mandatory provisions contained in
Sections 25F and 25G of the I.D.Act. Thus, when the specific finding is
recorded by the Labour Court on the basis of the material placed before it,
this Court is of the view that no error is committed by the Labour Court
while passing the impugned award by which direction is given to the
petitioner to reinstate the concerned respondent workman with 30% back
wages, However, at this stage, it is relevant to note that during the
pendency of the present petition, the respondent workmen were reinstated
in September, 2019 and they have worked with the petitioner for some
time. However, it is the case of the petitioner that after working for few
months, the concerned respondent workmen have stopped coming to the
hotel and after pandemic of 2020, the petitioner hotel is almost closed
where as it is the case of the respondent workmen that the petitioner is not
C/SCA/21808/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2022
permitting the respondent workmen to work with the petitioner. However,
in the present petition, it is not required to consider the aforesaid factual
controversy and more particularly, when the learned advocate for the
respondent workmen, under the instructions, submitted that if the
lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, 30% back wages and
other monetary benefits which are stated in the separate chart are given to
the concerned respondent workmen.
6. Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present
case and on the basis of submissions canvassed by learned advocates for
the parties, this Court has to consider about the lumpsum compensation
which is required to be awarded to the concerned workmen. It is not in
dispute that the respondent of Special Civil Application No.21808 of
2017 has worked for 11 years, respondent of Special Civil Application
No.21809 of 2017 has worked for 16 years, respondent of Special Civil
Application No.21811 of 2017 has worked for 13 years, respondent of
Special Civil Application No.21812 of 2017 has worked for 7 years,
respondent of Special Civil Application No.21813 of 2017 has worked
for 17 years, respondent of Special Civil Application No.21814 of 2019
has worked for 2.5 years.
7. As per the separate statement provided by the learned
advocate for the respondent workmen, the concerned workmen is entitled
to get the following benefits.
Sr.No. Particul SCA SCA SCA SCA SCA SCA
ars 21808 21809 21811 21812 21813 21814 of
of 2017 of 2017 of 2017 of 2017 of 2017 2017
1 Amount 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%
Receiva back back back back back back
ble wages wages wages wages wages wages
C/SCA/21808/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2022
for the for the for thefor the for the for the
period period period period period period
11-12- 11.12.2 11.12.211.12.2 11.12.2 11.12.20
2010 to 010 to 010 to 010 to 010 to 10 to
30-6- 30.6.20 30.6.2030.6.20 30.6.20 30.6.201
Rs.1,41, Rs.1,41, Rs.1,41,
Rs.1,41, Rs.1,41, rs.1,41,2
240-00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240-00 40-00
Full Full Full Full
regular Full Full regular regular regular
wages regular regular wages wages wages
from wages wages from from from
1.7.201 from from 1.7.201 1.7.201 1.7.2017
7 to 1.7.201 1.7.201 7 to 7 to to
23.9.20 7 to 7 to 23.9.20 23.9.20 23.9.201
Rs.2,17, 19 19 Rs.2,17, Rs.2,17,
510-80 Rs.2,17, Rs.2,17, Rs.2,17, 510.80 510.80
510.80 510.80 510.80 Gratuity Gratuity
Gratuity Gratuity Gratuity Gratuity for the for the
for the for the for the for the period period
period period period period 5.7.199 11.11.20
11.7.19 9.1.199 14.1.19 12.4.20 2 to 05 to
96 to 4 to 97 to 02 to 31.3.20 31.3.202
31.3.20 31.3.20 31.3.20 31.3.20 22 - 30 2 - 16
22-22 22-28 22 24 22-20 years years-
years years years years- salary - salary
salary salary salary salary 9792/- 9792/-
Rs.9792 9792/- = Rs.9792 9792/- = Rs.1,46, Rs.78,3
/- = Rs.1,37, /- = 97,920- 880/- 36/-
Rs.1,27, 088/- Rs.1,17, 00
296/- 504.00 Total Total
Total Rs.5,05, Rs.4,37,
Total Total Total Rs.4,56, 630/- 086.00
Rs.4,86, Rs.4,95, Rs.4,76, 670/-
066.80 838.80 254.00
Thus, from the aforesaid details submitted by learned advocates for the
parties and looking to the services rendered by the concerned respondent
workman, this Court is of the view that interest of justice would be served
if lumpsum compensation as follows is awarded to the respondent
workmen.
C/SCA/21808/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2022
Sr.N SCA SCA 21809 SCA 21811 SCA SCA SCA
o. 21808 of of 2017 of 2017 21812 of 21813 of 21814 of
2017 2017 2017 2017
1. Rs.2.50 Rs.3.00 lacs Rs.3.00 lacs Rs.2.50 Rs.3.50 Rs.2.50
lacs lacs lacs lacs
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, all these petitions are
partly allowed. The impugned awards passed by the Labour Court dated
25.5.2017 in the respective reference cases are modified to the aforesaid
extent. The petitioner shall pay the aforesaid amount of lumpsum
compensation to the concerned respondent workmen within a period of
twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If the aforesaid
amount is not paid by the petitioner to the concerned respondent
workmen within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the
order, the petitioner shall pay interest on the aforesaid amount @ 7% p.a.
for the delayed period. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
9. In view of the disposal of the petitions, no orders are
required to be passed in the civil applications and accordingly, they are
disposed off.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
SRILATHA
