Parbatsinh Dayasinh Chauhan vs Deputy Executive Engineer
2022 Latest Caselaw 4394 Guj

     C/SCA/23032/2017                              JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23032 of 2017


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: Sd./-


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

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

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 ?

==========================================================
                        PARBATSINH DAYASINH CHAUHAN
                                   Versus
                         DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR APURVA R KAPADIA(5012) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN SHAH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

                               Date : 26/04/2022

                              ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Learned AGP, Mr. Shah, waives service of rule for the Respondents.

2. Since, the issue involved in this petition runs in a very narrow compass, with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the same is

C/SCA/23032/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022

taken-up for final hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

3. This is a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby, the petitioner has challenged the award, Dated: 19.08.2017, passed in Reference (LCH) No. 43 of 2012 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Himmatnagar, awarding lump-sum compensation of Rs.70,001/- to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed by the respondents as a dailywager during the period from 1993 to 2001 and he was getting Rs.1500/- per month towards salary.

4.1 It is the case of the petitioner that, though, he had worked for more than 240 days in each year, the respondents terminated his services by an oral order in the year 2001 without following the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in brief, 'the ID Act').

4.2 Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner raised the industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Himmatnagar, and was registered as Reference (LCH) No. 43 of 2012.

4.3 Before the Labour Court, the petitioner submitted his Statement of Claims vide Exhibit-4,

C/SCA/23032/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022

whereas, the respondents filed their written statement vide Exhibit-11. Thereafter, both the sides led oral as well as the documentary evidences.

4.4 After considering the oral as well as the documentary evidences produced before it, the Labour Court recorded a specific finding that the respondents committed the breach of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act, while terminating the services of the petitioner. However, considering the fact that the services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 2001, whereas, the Reference was filed in the year 2012, i.e. nearly after a delay of about 11 years, the Labour Court granted the lump-sum compensation of Rs.70001/- in lieu of reinstatement. The Labour Court also awarded Rs.1501/- towards costs to the petitioner.

4.5 Being aggrieved with the aforesaid award, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

5. Learned Advocate, Mr. Mishra, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have not challenged the award of the Labour Court and thereby, they have accepted the findings recorded by the Labour Court to the effect that there is violation of mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act.

5.1 It was submitted that the petitioner worked with the respondents for about eight years and merely

C/SCA/23032/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022

because the dispute is raised after the delay of 11 years, it cannot be said that the dispute was not alive.

5.2 It was, further, submitted that, since, the respondents have not challenged the order of the Labour Court by filing a separate petition, the findings recorded by the Labour Court have attained finality.

5.3 It was, therefore, submitted that the Labour Court has committed a grave error by awarding Rs.70001/-, merely on the ground that the dispute was raised after the period of 11 years.

5.4 In support of his submissions, learned Advocate, Mr. Mishra, placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of 'STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VS. RAJ KUMAR', reported in AIR 2019 SC 310, wherein, the petitioner, who was working as a dailywager with the respondent-authorities, had raised an industrial dispute after a period of almost 25 years and Labour Court had granted only Rs.30,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. Thereafter, the same was challenged before the High Court and then before the Apex Court. In the matter before the Apex Court, considering the fact that the petitioner had worked for only one year and had raised the dispute after the period of 25 years, the Apex Court awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

C/SCA/23032/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022

5.5 Learned Advocate, Mr. Mishra, therefore prayed that this petition be allowed and the compensation be enhanced.

6. On the other hand, learned AGP, Mr. Shah, strongly opposed this petition and submitted that considering the fact that the dispute was raised by the petitioner after a period of 11 years, the Labour Court has rightly awarded Rs.70001/- to the petitioner and no error is committed.

6.1 It was, therefore, prayed that this petition be dismissed.

7. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the material on record, it transpires that the petitioner had worked for the period of about eight years with the respondents, i.e. from the year 1993 to 2001. It is the case of the petitioner that his services were terminated orally and in breach of the relevant provisions of the ID Act.

7.1 It is an admitted position of fact that the petitioner raised the dispute after a period of 11 years, which was referred to the concerned Labour Court, where, the Labour Court, after considering the documentary as well as the oral evidence led by both the sides, recorded a specific finding that the respondents violated the mandatory provisions of

C/SCA/23032/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022

Section 25-F of the ID Act. However, considering the fact that the petitioner had worked as a dailywage employee with the respondents for about eight years and the dispute was raised by him after a delay of about 11 years, the Labour Court awarded the lump-sum compensation of Rs.70001/- in lieu of reinstatement, which appears to be unjust and improper, more particularly, when the Labour Court has recorded a specific finding that there is a clear breach of the provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act. From the material produced on record, it is clear that the petitioner worked with the Respondents for about eight years and therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Labour Court appears to be a little on the lower side. Thus, the reliance placed on by the learned Advocate, Mr. Mishra, for the petitioner on the decision of the Apex Court in 'STATE OF UTTARAKHAND' (Supra) would come to the rescue of the petitioner.

7.2 Therefore, keeping in mind the decision of the Apex Court and considering the fact that the present petitioner worked for almost eights years and there is delay of 11 years in filing the Reference, the ends of justice would be met, if, the compensation awarded by the Labour Court is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-

8. Resultantly, this petition is PARTLY ALLOWED and the award, Dated: 19.08.2017, passed in Reference (LCH) No. 43 of 2012 by the learned Presiding

C/SCA/23032/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022

Officer, Labour Court, Himmatnagar, is MODIFIED and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.70001/- to Rs.1,00,000/-

8.1 The rest of the award stands CONFIRMED.

8.2 The Respondents shall pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner within the period of FOUR WEEKS from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8.3 Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.

Direct service is permitted.

Sd./-

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) UMESH/-