Gujarat High Court
Khant Hajoorbhai Maganbhai vs Deputy Executive Engineer on 26 April, 2022
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
C/SCA/23030/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23030 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 ?
==========================================================
KHANT HAJOORBHAI MAGANBHAI
Versus
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHA, MR HB SINGH(2073) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN SHAH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No.
1,2
==========================================================
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
C/SCA/23030/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022
the learned Advocates for the parties, the same is
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:
24.08.2017, passed in Reference (LCH) No. 36 of 2011
by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Himmatnagar, awarding lump-sum compensation of
Rs.50,001/- 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 with effect from 01.01.1982 and he was
getting Rs.1250/- 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 dated 04.08.1986 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. 36 of 2011.
4.3 Before the Labour Court, the petitioner
C/SCA/23030/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022
submitted his Statement of Claims vide Exhibit-6,
whereas, the respondents filed their written
statement vide Exhibit-8. 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 1986, whereas,
the Reference was filed in the year 2011, i.e. nearly
after a delay of about 25 years, the Labour Court
granted the lump-sum compensation of Rs.50001/- 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
C/SCA/23030/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022
with the respondents for about four years and merely
because the dispute is raised after the delay of 25
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.50001/-, merely on the ground that the dispute was
raised after the period of 25 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 had worked as a
dailywager with the respondent-authorities, had
raised the industrial dispute after a period of
almost 25 years and Labour Court had granted only
Rs.30,000/- in lieu of reinstatement, which came to
be enhanced by the Apex Court, taking into
consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of
that case, to Rs.1,00,000/-.
5.5 Learned Advocate, Mr. Mishra, therefore
prayed that this petition be allowed and the
C/SCA/23030/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022
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 25 years, the Labour
Court has rightly awarded Rs.50001/- 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 only for
the period of about four years with the respondents,
i.e. from 01.01.1982 to 04.08.1986. 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 25
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
Section 25-F of the ID Act. However, considering the
fact that the petitioner had worked as a dailywage
labourer with the respondents for only four years and
C/SCA/23030/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022
the dispute was raised by him after a huge delay of
25 years, awarded the lump-sum compensation of
Rs.50001/- in lieu of reinstatement, which appears to
be just and proper, and therefore, 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 render no
assistance to the case of the petitioner.
8. Resultantly, this petition fails and is
accordingly, DISMISSED. Rule is discharged.
Sd./-
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
UMESH/-
