Usha Agency vs Ramesh Jethabhai Parmar
2022 Latest Caselaw 9984 Guj

     C/SCA/14646/2018                                          ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14646 of 2018

==========================================================
                               USHA AGENCY
                                   Versus
                          RAMESH JETHABHAI PARMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
JEET Y RAJYAGURU(8039) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HARSHAD K PATEL(2844) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                                     Date : 12/12/2022

                                      ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed

for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment st and award dated 1 March, 2018 passed by the Labour

Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No.106 of 2007

whereby the lump-sum compensation of Rs.38,000/- has

been awarded to the respondent - workman in lieu of

his reinstatement and back-wages.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is

in the business of footwear and the respondent was

working under the petitioner since 2007 and without

there being any justifiable reasons, the respondent-

workman stopped coming to the duty as he being a

C/SCA/14646/2018 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022

skilled worker started working somewhere else and was

earning good salary.

3. Though the respondent-workman's services were

never terminated, he raised the false industrial dispute,

according to the petitioner before the Labour Court,

Rajkot and ultimately that was culminated into service

Reference (LCR) No.106 of 2007, wherein the case of the

respondent - workman was that he was serving under

the petitioner for a period of 15 years and thereafter,

without following due procedure his services were

terminated.

4. Ultimately, after hearing the present petitioner and respondent-workman, the Labour Court came to the

conclusion that the termination of the respondent-

workman was in violation of Section 25 (F) and (G) and

Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However,

considering the fact that the respondent-workman was

already serving elsewhere and left there were 11 years

passed since the respondent - workman was terminated.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the

case, the Labour Court awarded lump-sum compensation

C/SCA/14646/2018 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022

of Rs. 38,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back-wages.

5. It is that order i.e. under challenged by way of this

petition.

6. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jeet Y. Rajyaguru for

the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Harshad K.

Patel for respondent-workman.

7. The present petition is preferred by the Company

challenging the award lump-sum compensation of

Rs.38,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back-wages,

however, the same has not been challenged by the

workman and therefore, this aspect has been considered while deciding the present application.

8. Learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru for the petitioner

submitted that the services of the petitioner were never

terminated and he pointed out the fact that in fact the

respondent-workman was asked to join the services under

the present petitioner keeping the matter sub-judice or th by way of settlement vide a pursis dated 13 July, 2017

given before the Labour Court, however, despite that the

C/SCA/14646/2018 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022

respondent-workman did not resume the duty under the

petitioner and therefore, even compensation of

Rs. 38,000/- awarded by the Labour Court is illegal and

therefore, the impugned order is required to be quashed

and set aside.

9. Learned advocate Mr. Harshad Patel for the

respondent-workman pointed out from the aforesaid th pursis dated 13 July, 2017 that on that day, the

present respondent-workman was not present before the

Court and therefore, though the aforesaid pursis was

given to the Court, the same was never brought within

the knowledge of the respondent-workman. Considering

the fact that the Labour Court has passed the aforesaid award granting lump-sum compensation of Rs.38,000/- by

taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances

and also considering the fact that the petitioner has not

preferred any petition challenging the aforesaid award,

the present petition may be dismissed.

10. I have heard learned advocates for the respective

parties and considered the documents on record. I have

considered the fact that the Labour Court has considered

C/SCA/14646/2018 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2022

the matter from all angle and though the Labour Court

has categorically held that there is a breach of Section

25 (F) and (G) and Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes

Act. Further by coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the

Labour Court has granted lump-sum compensation of Rs.

38,000/-, which is a very meager amount. Therefore,

taking into consideration the aforesaid fact as well as

taking into consideration the fact that the learned

advocate Mr. Jeet Rajyaguru could not point out any

material to contradict the findings that there is violation

of Section 25 (F) and (G) and Rule 81 of Industrial

Disputes Act. I do not deem it appropriate to interfere

with the findings of the Labour Court and therefore, the

present petition is required to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged. No

order as to costs.

(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) KUMAR ALOK