Gujarat High Court
Mahendra Bhavsinh Mori vs Gondal Nagar Palika on 2 February, 2022
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/1716/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1716 of 2021
==========================================================
MAHENDRA BHAVSINH MORI
Versus
GONDAL NAGAR PALIKA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 02/02/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr.Pandya, waives service of
notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1.
2. While issuing notice vide order dated 01.02.2021, learned
advocate Mr.Mishra, appearing for the petitioner had stated
that the writ petition is only confined for enhancement of lump-
sum compensation awarded by the Tribunal. He has submitted
that the lump-sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- is too meagre
looking to the service of the petitioner of six years. He has
relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Madhya Bharat Gramin Bank Vs. Panchanlal Yadav,
[rendered in Civil Appeal No.9792 of 2010] and have submitted
that the compensation may be appropriately enhanced.
3. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned
advocate Mr.Yogen Pandya, appearing for the respondent -
Nagarpalika has submitted that the Labour Court has recorded
that the petitioner had continuously worked from September,
1999 till 2001, and prior to that he had worked intermittently
from 1995 and hence, the award granting compensation of
Rs.50,000/- is just and proper and the same may not be
disturbed.
C/SCA/1716/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022
4. I have heard the learned advocates for respective parties.
I have also perused the relevant documents.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that since he was illegally
terminated in the year 2001, he raised an industrial dispute
which culminated into the reference being Reference (LCR)
No.300 of 2001. The Labour Court after detail examination of
the evidence, has held that the termination was illegal,
however, while passing the final direction, the Labour Court
has awarded a lump-sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lieu
of the reinstatement. The present writ petition is only confined
to enhancement of the compensation.
6. The findings of the Labour Court reveal that the
termination is held to be illegal and the evidence, which has
surfaced on the record reveals that the petitioner has worked
from September, 1999, continuously till the year 2001, when
he was terminated. However, the Labour Court has also given
a finding that prior to that the petitioner was engaged for the
work intermittently from 1995. Thus, the continuous period of
the service rendered by the present petitioner from 1999 to
2001 is for two years. However, from 1995 to 1999, there is no
specific finding given with regard to the continuous work.
7. In this view of the matter and in light of the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Panchanlal Yadav (supra), it will be
apposite to enhance the lump-sum compensation to
Rs.1,75,000/- from Rs.50,000/-, looking to the tenure of the
service of the petitioner. Thus, the award stands modified
accordingly. The respondent is directed to pay a lump-sum
C/SCA/1716/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022
compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- to the petitioner. The same
shall be paid within period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of writ of this order.
8. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of
accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
MAHESH BHATI/53
