Bharatbhai A Varia vs Spaco Carburetors India Ltd - Now ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9091 Guj

    C/SCA/14200/2013                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2022




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14200 of 2013
                                   With
    CIVIL APPLICATION (FIXING DATE OF EARLY HEARING) NO. 1 of 2022
             In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14200 of 2013

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE                               Sd/-

=============================================

1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see                NO
     the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                                NO

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the               NO
     judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as            NO
     to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
     order made thereunder ?

=============================================
                      BHARATBHAI A VARIA
                             Versus
      SPACO CARBURETORS INDIA LTD - NOW KNOWN AS & 1 other(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PARITOSH CALLA(2972) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

                               Date : 13/10/2022

                              ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Matter is placed in view of the Civil Application for fixing date of early

C/SCA/14200/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2022

hearing. However, as recorded in the earlier order and with the consent

of both the parties, main matter is taken up for hearing and final

disposal.

2. This petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India is filed

challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 09-01-2012 in

Reference (L.C.J.) No.713 of 1999 by the Labour Court, Godhra.

3. By the aforesaid order, termination of the petitioner-workman was held

to be illegal. However, in lieu of the reinstatement, lump-sum

compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- was ordered.

4. The issue is with regard to termination of the petitioner-workman

pursuant to an inquiry conducted for the incident, which took place in

the factory premises, where the petitioner-workman was alleged to have

utilized man powers meant for the purpose of employer for his personal

use and had utilized machinery and material of the employer for

making box for personal use.

5. Inquiry was conducted by issuing of charge-sheet and appointment of

Inquiry Officer along with the Presenting Officer and that after

conclusion of Inquiry Report came to be submitted and with the report,

Second Show Cause Notice was issued. However, before the Labour

Court, order came to be passed on 19-03-2011, wherein it was held that

charge-sheet issued on 21-08-1998 was not in accordance with the

principles of natural justice and therefore, was set aside. At the same

time, permission was granted to the employer to produce the evidence

C/SCA/14200/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2022

before the Labour Court itself so as to establish charge against the

petitioner-workman.

6. It appears from the record that accordingly the witnesses were

examined and the Labour Court was satisfied with regard to the

evidence available against the petitioner-workman and the same

justifying the charge against him. However, in exercise of powers under

Section-11A, impugned order came to be passed, wherein the Court

found that though inquiry has taken place, but order of termination was

in exaggeration to the charge, which was proved against the petitioner-

workman and therefore, the step of the respondent-employer for

terminating the service was set aside.

7. Considering the nature of charge against the petitioner-workman and

after holding that termination was an excessive punishment for charge,

the Labour Court proceeded to award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

8. Perusal of the record would indicate that the evidence, which was laid

before the Labour Court, the appreciation of such evidence was done

properly by the Labour Court in arriving at the conclusion that the

incident has taken place. However, the Labour Court has also referred

to the provision of Section-11A and has found that the order of

termination was excessive to the charge against the petitioner-

workman.

9. The Court has taken into consideration the record in entirety and now it

is reported that operation of the establishment at the present address

C/SCA/14200/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2022

has been closed down and as they were manufacturing carburetors for

two wheeler, which itself is no more working and the petitioner-

workman is also aged 57 years. However, considering the period of

service rendered by the petitioner-workman with the respondent-

Company from 1989 of 1998, the Court deems it fit to enhance the

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/-. It is reported that

amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was awarded, though sent by the

respondent-Company to the petitioner-workman, the same has not been

accepted by the petitioner-workman.

10. In view of the aforesaid, amount of Rs.2,50,000/- be paid to the

petitioner-workman on or before 28-10-2022.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed. Rule is made

absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.

12. In view of the order passed in the main matter, the Civil Application

does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

(A.Y. KOGJE, J) PARESH SOMPURA