Gujarat High Court
Ishwarbhai Dhamirbhai Vasava vs Dy. Executive Engineer, Panam ... on 22 June, 2022
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/4998/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4998 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
ISHWARBHAI DHAMIRBHAI VASAVA
Versus
DY. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANAM IRRIGATION PROJECT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR.KURVEN DESAI, AGP (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 22/06/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Kurven Desai
learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of the respondent State.
2. With the consent of learned advocates for the
C/SCA/4998/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2022
respective parties, the petition is taken up for final
hearing.
3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the challenge is to the award
of the Labour Court, by which, the petitioner
workman has been awarded a compensation of
Rs.34,000/-.
4. Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner-
workman who was working as a daily wager with the
respondent approached the Labour Court by filing a
statement of claim at Exh.5. It was his case that he
was engaged with the respondents since October
1984. That, he was getting a daily wage of Rs.42.20
and that he was working for eight hours each day.
The respondents did not give him any appointment
order or pay slip. That he had worked for over a
period of 240 days of service and he faced
termination with effect from 1992. The employer
filed a response at Exh.10 admitting that the
petitioner was working with them since 30.03.1988.
However, denying the fact of his oral termination
C/SCA/4998/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2022
from the year 1992, the Labour Court after
discussing the evidence and on the basis of muster
role produced at Exhs.15 and 17 found that
particularly the respondents have produced the
muster role for the year 1988-99. That they had not
produced salary slips or the muster roles for 1991-
92. The Labour Court based on the decision in case
of Director, Fisheries Terminal Division v.
Bhikhubhai Meghajibhai Chavda reported in
2010 0 AIR (SC) 1236, drawing adverse inference
found that the petitioner had completed 240 days in
service.
5. On the issue of delay, the Labour Court observed
that the termination of the year 1992 was challenged
before the Labour Court on 25.07.2006 i.e.
approximately after 13 years of service. Considering
the decision of the Supreme Court in case of
Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana
Roadways, Hissar rendered in Civil Appeal No.
8434 of 2014, the Labour Court went on to
consider the question of moulding the relief and
C/SCA/4998/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2022
observed that the termination of the daily wager was
in the year 1992. That having worked initially from
1984, more than 19 years had gone by and therefore
rather than grant the workman the benefit of
reinstatement, the Labour Court observed that it
would be in the fitness of things to award
compensation for the period of 8 years that the
petitioner had worked as a daily wager and on his
own admission of he having worked on a daily wage
of Rs.42.40 per day, the Labour Court awarded a
compensation of Rs.34,000/-.
6. Mr.P.C.Chaudhary learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that once the Labour Court had
categorically observed that the termination was
illegal, reinstatement with continuity of service and
back-wages ought to have been awarded. At best,
for a delay of 13 years, the relief of back-wages
could have been appropriately moulded.
7. Mr.Kurven Desai learned AGP would support the
award.
C/SCA/4998/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2022
8. Perusal of the award would indicate that the
petitioner admittedly was working as a daily wager.
He was engaged in the year 1984 and was
terminated in the year 1992. Based on his own
admission of the quantum of wage, a calculation of
Rs.34,000/- was arrived at by the Labour Court and
compensation accordingly was granted rather than
reinstatement. The termination of the year 1992
was challenged in the year 2016 i.e. 13 years after
the alleged termination and 19 years after the date
of the petitioner's initial engagement.
9. However, in the interest of justice, the award of
compensation of Rs.34,000/- is enhanced to
Rs.40,000/-.
10. The petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid
extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
ANKIT SHAH
