Gujarat High Court
Hotel Rahi vs Rohit Jagdishbhai K on 10 November, 2022
Bench: A.J.Desai
C/LPA/1284/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1284 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21808 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1284 of 2022
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1285 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21811 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1285 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21811 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1286 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21813 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1286 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21813 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1287 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21814 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1287 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21814 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1288 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21809 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1288 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21809 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1289 of 2022
In
Page 1 of 7
Downloaded on : Fri Nov 11 20:58:09 IST 2022
C/LPA/1284/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2022
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21812 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1289 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21812 of 2017
==========================================================
HOTEL RAHI
Versus
ROHIT JAGDISHBHAI K.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRABHAKAR UPADHYAY with MR AAKASH D MODI(7449) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 10/11/2022
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI)
[1.0] By way of present appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, the employer has challenged the common oral judgment
dated 21.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in
captioned writ petitions by which the learned Single Judge has
partly allowed the writ petitions filed by the appellant herein -
original petitioner - employer modifying the order dated
25.05.2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.4,
Vadodara in respective references.
[2.0] The short facts arising from the record of the case are as
follows:
[2.1] That, Reference Case Nos.118/2011, 121/2011, 123/2011,
C/LPA/1284/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2022
124/2011, 119/2011 and 122/2011 were preferred by the
respondent No.1 - employees for their illegal termination of
services who were working for several years with the appellant
herein - original petitioner. The learned Labour Court after
considering the material available on record and giving
opportunity to all the concerned, allowed the said references
separately and directed the appellant herein - original petitioner
to reinstate the respondent No.1 - employees with 30% back
wages. The said decision of the learned Labour Court was
challenged by the appellant herein by way of filing captioned writ
petitions.
[2.2] In response to the notice issued by the learned Single
Judge, the respondent No.1 - employees appeared and filed
respective affidavits in reply opposing the grant of relief as
prayed for by the original petitioner - employer.
[2.3] The learned Single Judge after considering the factual
aspect partly allowed the captioned writ petitions and
considering the services put in by the respective employees
modified the order of the learned Labour Court and directed to
pay lump sum compensation accordingly to the respective
employees.
Hence, present Letters Patent Appeal.
[3.0] Learned advocate Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay with learned
advocate Mr. Aakash D. Modi appearing for the appellant -
original petitioner - employer would submit that the learned
Single Judge has committed error in not accepting the case of
the appellant - original petitioner. He has mainly argued that
C/LPA/1284/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2022
several employees are working with the appellant - employer
and therefore, the order of reinstatement ought to have been
quashed and set aside instead of granting lump sum
compensation . He, therefore, would submit that the appeal be
admitted and allowed.
[4.0] We have heard learned advocate Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay
assisted by learned advocate Mr. Aakash D. Modi appearing for
the appellant - employer.
It appears from the observations made by the learned
Single Judge that though these contentions were raised,
ultimately instead of granting back wages and reinstatement,
lump sum compensation came to be awarded. Submissions have
been recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 4.4
which reads as under:
"4.4 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that
even assuming that the findings recorded by the Labour
Court in the impugned award are correct that the petitioner
has violated the provisions contained in Sections 25F and
25G of the I.D.Act, even then, the order of reinstatement is
not automatic and in lieu of reinstatement and back wages,
lumpsum compensation can be awarded. Learned advocate
has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vashrambhai
Dhanabhai Vegad V/s State of Gujarat reported in (2017)2
SCC 508. Learned advocate for the petitioner, therefore,
urged that the impugned award be quashed and set aside
or alternatively, lumpsum compensation can be awarded to
the respondent workman looking to the facts of the present
case."
[4.1] Considering this aspect, the learned Single Judge after
dealing with the case of each of the respondents - employees
C/LPA/1284/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2022
has granted lump sum compensation though the back wages
calculated was on higher side. The findings of the learned Single
Judge read as under:
"5.3 I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned
advocates appearing for the parties and gone through the
material placed on record. From the impugned award passed
by the Labour Court, it is revealed that the respondent
workman has given the deposition vide Exh.12 and also
produced the documentary evidence. The petitioner has also
filed written statement Exh.6 and on the application
submitted by the respondent workman vide Exh.10
demanding certain documents, the petitioner produced
documents vide Exh.11. After considering the documentary as
well as oral evidence produced before the Labour Court, the
Labour Court has specifically recorded the finding in
paragraph 10 that the petitioner has violated mandatory
provisions contained in Sections 25F and 25G of the I.D.Act.
Thus, when the specific finding is recorded by the Labour
Court on the basis of the material placed before it, this Court
is of the view that no error is committed by the Labour Court
while passing the impugned award by which direction is given
to the petitioner to reinstate the concerned respondent
workman with 30% back wages, However, at this stage, it is
relevant to note that during the pendency of the present
petition, the respondent workmen were reinstated in
September, 2019 and they have worked with the petitioner
for some time. However, it is the case of the petitioner that
after working for few months, the concerned respondent
workmen have stopped coming to the hotel and after
pandemic of 2020, the petitioner hotel is almost closed where
as it is the case of the respondent workmen that the
petitioner is not permitting the respondent workmen to work
with the petitioner. However, in the present petition, it is not
required to consider the aforesaid factual controversy and
more particularly, when the learned advocate for the
respondent workmen, under the instructions, submitted that
if the lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, 30%
back wages and other monetary benefits which are stated in
the separate chart are given to the concerned respondent
workmen.
6. Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
C/LPA/1284/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2022
present case and on the basis of submissions canvassed by
learned advocates for the parties, this Court has to consider
about the lumpsum compensation which is required to be
awarded to the concerned workmen. It is not in dispute that
the respondent of Special Civil Application No.21808 of 2017
has worked for 11 years, respondent of Special Civil
Application No.21809 of 2017 has worked for 16 years,
respondent of Special Civil Application No.21811 of 2017 has
worked for 13 years, respondent of Special Civil Application
No.21812 of 2017 has worked for 7 years, respondent of
Special Civil Application No.21813 of 2017 has worked for 17
years, respondent of Special Civil Application No.21814 of
2019 has worked for 2.5 years.
7. As per the separate statement provided by the learned
advocate for the respondent workmen, the concerned
workmen is entitled to get the following benefits.
Sr Particulars SCA 21808 of SCA 21809 SCA 21811 SCA 21812 SCA 21813 SCA 21814
No 2017 of 2017 of 2017 of 2017 of 2017 of 2017
1 Amount 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%
received back back back back back back
wages for the wages for wages for wages for wages for the wages for
period the period the period the period period the period
11.12.2010 to 11.12.2010 11.12.2010 11.12.2010 11.12.2010 to 11.12.2010
30.6.2017 to 30.6.2017 to 30.6.2017 to 30.6.2017 30.6.2017 to 30.6.2017
Rs.1,41,240 Rs.1,41,240 Rs.1,41,240 Rs.1,41,240
Rs.1,41,240. Rs.1,41,240.
Full regular Full regular Full regular Full regular Full regular Full regular
wages from wages from wages from wages from wages from wages from
1.7.2017 to 1.7.2017 to 1.7.2017 to 1.7.2017 to 1.7.2017 to 1.7.2017 to
23.9.2019 23.9.2019 23.9.2019 23.9.2019 23.9.2019 23.9.2019
Rs.2,17,510.8 Rs.2,17,510. Rs.2,17,510. Rs.2,17,510. Rs.2,17,510. Rs.2,17,510.
Gratuity for Gratuity for Gratuity for Gratuity for Gratuity for Gratuity for
the period the period the period the period the period the period
11.7.1996 to 9.1.1994 to 14.7.1997 to 12.4.2002 to 5.7.1992 to 11.11.2005
31.3.2022-22 31.3.2022-28 31.3.2022-24 31.3.2022-20 31.3.2022-30 to 31.3.2022-
years salary years salary years salary years salary years salary 16 years
Rs.9792/- = Rs.9792/- = Rs.9792/- = Rs.9792/- = Rs.9792/- = salary
Rs.1,27,296 Rs.1,37,088 Rs.1,17,504 Rs.97,920 Rs.1,46,880/- Rs.9792/- =
Rs.78,336/-
Total Total Total Total Total Total
Rs.4,86,066.8 Rs.4,95,838. Rs.4,76,254. Rs.4,56,670. Rs.5,05,630. Rs.4,37,086.
Thus, from the aforesaid details submitted by learned
advocates for the parties and looking to the services rendered
C/LPA/1284/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2022
by the concerned respondent workman, this Court is of the
view that interest of justice would be served if lumpsum
compensation as follows is awarded to the respondent
workmen.
Sr SCA 21808 SCA 21809 SCA 21811 SCA 21812 SCA 21813 SCA 21814
No of 2017 of 2017 of 2017 of 2017 of 2017 of 2017
1 Rs.2.50 lacs Rs.3.00 lacs Rs.3.00 lacs Rs.2.50 lacs Rs.3.50 lacs Rs.2.50 lacs
[4.2] From the above observations made by the learned Single
Judge, it appears that though the back wages comes between
Rs.4,37,086/- to Rs.5,05,630/-, the learned Single Judge has
granted lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.2.50 to Rs.3.00
lacs. In our considered opinion, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned common oral judgment passed by
the learned Single Judge.
[5.0] In view of the above discussion, all the Letters Patent
Appeal are dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeals,
respective civil applications for stay also stand dismissed.
(A.J. DESAI, J.)
(NISHA M. THAKORE, J.)
Ajay
