Gujarat High Court
Deputy Executive Engineer vs Govindbhai Naranbhai Patel on 5 May, 2022
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/LPA/1426/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1426 of 2017
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4101 of 2010
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1352 of 2017
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 367 of 2010
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1353 of 2017
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 368 of 2010
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2017
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1353 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================
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 ?
==========================================================
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & 2 other(s)
Versus
GOVINDBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Appellant(s) No.
MR. RADHESH Y VYAS(7060) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 05/05/2022
Page 1 of 6
Downloaded on : Thu May 05 21:07:38 IST 2022
C/LPA/1426/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2022
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
common judgment and order dated 9.10.2015
passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court in Special Civil Applications no.
367/10, 368/10 and 4101/10, the appellants-
State have preferred these Letters Patent
Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
As the issue arising in these appeals are
similar and identical, all the 3 appeals were
heard together and are disposed of by this
common judgment and order.
2. Facts in Letters Patent Appeal no.1426/17:-
2.1 The respondent - workman was engaged as a
daily wager in 1983 as a Macadam on monthly
salary of Rs.300/-. The respondent-workman has
stopped coming to work in the year 1988. The
respondent - workman has approached the Labour
Court by raising a dispute as provided under
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 being Reference no. 206/95 after delay of
7 years.
Facts in Letters Patent Appeal no.1352/17:-
2.2 The respondent - workman was engaged as a
daily wager in 1981 for the Canal Project on
daily wage of Rs.12.40 ps. The respondent-
workman has stopped coming to work in the year
1986. The respondent - workman has approached
C/LPA/1426/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2022
the Labour Court by raising a dispute as
provided under Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 being Reference no. 444/93
after delay of 7 years.
Facts in Letters Patent Appeal no.1353/17
2.3 The respondent - workman was engaged as a
daily wager in 1981 for the Canal Project on
daily wage of Rs.12.40 ps. The respondent-
workman has stopped coming to work in the year
1986. The respondent - workman has approached
the Labour Court by raising a dispute as
provided under Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 being Reference LCG no.
442/93 after delay of 7 years.
3. Heard Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for appellants - State and
its authorities in all the 3 appeals and Mr.
Radhesh Vyas, learned advocate for the
respondents - workmen in all the 3 appeals.
4. Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned Assistant
Government Pleader contended that the
respondent - workmen have worked with the
appellants for less than 240 days and
thereafter, on their own, the respondent-
workmen stopped coming to work and therefore,
they are not entitled for reinstatement or
backwages. It was contended that the
respondent - workmen have made complaint after
C/LPA/1426/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2022
a period of more than 9 years and therefore,
the respondent - workmen are not entitled for
reinstatement or backwages. It was further
contended that the appellants have produced
nominal muster roll before the Labour Court,
wherein it is clarified that the respondent-
workmen have not worked for 240 days with the
appellants and therefore, there is no
violation of Sections 25F, G and H of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence, the
respondent - workmen are not entitled for
reinstatement or backwages. It was thus
contended that the appeals may be allowed.
5. Per contra, Mr. Radhesh Vyas, learned advocate
for the respondent - workmen has supported the
impugned judgment and order and has submitted
that the learned Single Judge has rightly come
to the conclusion that there is violation of
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. It was contended that only because of
the fact that the References were filed after
7 to 9 years, the same would not preclude the
respondent-workmen from claiming reinstatement
and backwages. It was contended that the
finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court
clearly establishes the fact that there was
breach of Sections 25F and G of the Act and
the learned Single Judge has therefore rightly
modified the award of compensation in lieu of
C/LPA/1426/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2022
reinstatement and granted reinstatement with
25% backwages. No case for interference is
made out. It was thus contended that the
appeals, being meritless, deserve to be
dismissed.
6. No other or further submissions, averments,
grounds and/or contentions are made by the
learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing
for the respective parties, it has transpired
that in two appeals i.e. Letters Patent
Appeals no.1352/17 and 1353/17, the workmen
have attained the age of superannuation,
whereas, in Letters Patent Appeal no. 1426/17,
the workman is to attain the age of
superannuation within short time. It is also a
matter of fact that the Reference Applications
are of 1993. The cases where they have already
retired, the question of reinstatement would
not arise and even in other case, the workman
is to attain the age of superannuation. It is
also a matter of fact that when the References
were filed, the Reference Court did not grant
reinstatement, but granted lumpsum
compensation of Rs.24,000/- / Rs.25,000/- in
lieu of backwages. Even considering the
observations of the learned Single Judge, more
C/LPA/1426/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2022
than 3 decades have passed and hence, the
question of reinstatement would not subserve
the common good as expressed by the learned
Single Judge. Considering the totality of
facts, this Court is of the opinion that
appropriate amount of lumpsum compensation be
granted to the workmen in lieu of
reinstatement, which we quantify at
Rs.2,50,000/- to all of them following the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation Vs. Jadeja
Govubha Chhanubha & Anr., reported in AIR 2015
SC 609. Such payment shall be made within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of this judgment and order, failing which, the
same would entail interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of expiry of eight
weeks till the date of actual payment.
8. Accordingly, the present appeals are disposed
of in the above terms. However, there shall be
no order as to costs.
(R.M.CHHAYA,J)
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Maulik
