Dhoraji Municipality vs Irfan Ibrahim Pothiawala
2022 Latest Caselaw 10252 Guj

     C/LPA/955/2022                          ORDER DATED: 19/12/2022




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 955 of 2022
        In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7094 of 2018
                               With
           CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
           In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 955 of 2022
==========================================================
                      DHORAJI MUNICIPALITY
                              Versus
                   IRFAN IBRAHIM POTHIAWALA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PREMAL S RACHH(3297) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
         and
         HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

                          Date : 19/12/2022
                            ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI)

[1.0] By way of present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant - original petitioner of Special Civil Application No.7094/2018 has challenged a common oral judgment dated 24.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition by which the learned Single Judge has upheld the judgment and award dated 30.08.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.2, Rajkot whereas the claim of the respondent - employee for refusing 100% back wages is also dismissed.

[2.0] Short facts emerging from the record of the case are as follows:

[2.1] That, respondent-workman was appointed on the post of

C/LPA/955/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/12/2022

Clerk, on daily wage basis, by the original petitioner - Municipality. Respondent - workman, for regularization of his services, approached the Industrial Tribunal vide Reference (IT) No. 364 of 2000.

[2.2] That, pending the said Reference, the services of respondent No.1 came to be terminated by the original petitioner with effect from 16.02.2000. Respondent No.1, therefore, filed Complaint (IT) No. 1 of 2002 in Reference (IT) No. 364 of 2000, as per the provisions of Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "ID Act"). However, the said application came to be rejected by the Tribunal on 28.09.2012.

[2.3] That, Respondent No.1, being aggrieved with the same, approached this Court, by way of filing Special Civil Application No.17046 of 2012, which came to be disposed off the said petition on 28.12.2012 with directions and observations that respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to raise substantial dispute before the Court concerned by way of an application under Section 11 of the ID Act.

[2.4] That, Respondent No.1, therefore, approached the learned Labour Court by way of filing Reference (LCR) No. 31 of 2013, challenging his termination order dated 16.02.2000. The learned Labour Court allowed the said reference in favour of respondent No.1, as stated herein above. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant herein preferred Special Civil Application No.7094/2018, which came to be rejected by the learned Single Judge.

C/LPA/955/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/12/2022

Hence, present Letters Patent Appeal.

[3.0] Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi appearing for the appellant - original petitioner would submit that it is an undisputed fact that for certain period i.e. from 2002 to 2020, the respondent - workman has not worked till he was reinstated and therefore, the award passed by the learned Labour Court as confirmed by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside.

[4.0] On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Premal Rachh appearing for the respondents would submit that only 50% back wages has been granted though it has been held that it was illegal termination. He would submit that total amount of back wages comes to Rs.5,50,783/- and in such circumstances, this Court may not interfere with the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court as also confirmed by the learned Single Judge.

[5.0] We have gone through the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Indisputably, the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court holding that there was illegal termination of the respondent - workman is upheld by the learned Single Judge, which do not call for any interference by this Court. As far as back wages is concerned, a zerox copy of the details with regard to 50% back wages for the aforesaid period, which comes to Rs.5,50,783/- is supplied. Considering the smallness of amount and the fact that the respondent - workman was illegally terminated and has already been reinstated, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, present Letters Patent Appeal is

C/LPA/955/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/12/2022

dismissed.

In view of dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application (For Stay) also stands dismissed.

(A.J. DESAI, J.)

(NISHA M. THAKORE, J.) Ajay