Gujarat Woman Economic ... vs Chudasama Kishorekumar ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7866 Guj

     C/LPA/643/2022                         ORDER DATED: 13/09/2022




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.643 of 2022
                           In
     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7259 of 2018
                         With
       CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO.1 of 2020
       In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.643 of 2022
                         With
        R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.1071 of 2022
                            In
       SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4207 of 2019
                         With
       CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO.1 of 2020
      In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.1071 of 2022
                            In
       SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4207 of 2019
                         With
        R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.645 of 2022
                            In
      SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15900 of 2018
                         With
       CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO.1 of 2020
       In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.645 of 2022
                            In
      SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15900 of 2018
                         With
        R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.1070 of 2022
                            In
       SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4206 of 2019
                         With
       CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO.1 of 2020
      In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.1070 of 2022
                            In
       SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4206 of 2019
=========================================
GUJARAT WOMAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION GUJARAT LTD
                          Versus
            CHUDASAMA KISHOREKUMAR NATHABHAI
=========================================
Appearance :
MR UTKARSH R SHARMA for the Appellant.
HARSH K RAVAL for the Respondent.
MR AMRESH N PATEL for the Respondent.
=========================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI


                              Page 1 of 4

                                                Downloaded on : Wed Sep 14 22:15:23 IST 2022
      C/LPA/643/2022                                    ORDER DATED: 13/09/2022




           and
           HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT

                     Date : 13/09/2022
                   COMMON ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. J. DESAI)

1. By way of the present group of appeals, the appellant - original petitioner has challenged the oral judgment dated 2.7.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in captioned Special Civil Applications. By the said order, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions filed challenging the judgment and award dated 30.11.2017 passed by learned Presiding Officer,Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) No.664 of 2003, judgment and award dated 23.1.2018 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) No.648 of 2003, judgment and award dated 14.9.2018 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) No.661 of 2003 and judgment and award dated 7.9.2018 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) No.646 of 2003 . By the said award, the learned Labour Court had directed the appellants herein to reinstate the respondents in service with continuity of service and 50% back wages.

2. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned advocate appearing for the appellants would submit that learned Single Judge while dismissing the captioned writ petitions has relied upon the decision of the coordinate Bench rendered in Special Civil Application No.10973 of 2014 who were similarly situated workmen like the present respondents. The said decision of the coordinate Bench is also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the Letters

C/LPA/643/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2022

Patent Appeal No.1246 of 2015 which is again confirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition No.33057 and 33058 of 2015 filed by the present appellant. He, however, would submit that considering the span of services rendered by the respondent - workmen ranging from 3 to 8 years and the fact that their services were terminated way back in the year 2003, this Court may grant lumpsum amount against their termination. He would further submit that except one of the respondent - employee, all other workmen have worked hardly for 3 to 4 years and in such circumstances, lumpsum amount may be awarded to the respondent. He, therefore, would submit that the appeal may be admitted and the impugned order of learned Single Judge may be modified to the above extent.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Amresh N. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the respondent - workmen in each appeals would submit that similarly situated workmen like the respondents herein, their services were terminated and the said issue has been considered by coordinate Bench of this Court and the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by a reasoned order which has been upheld by the Division Bench and the said decisions have been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, even though the services rendered by those employees were not longish. He would further submit that in such cases, equal treatment to similarly situated employees are required to be given as per the order passed by learned Single Judge. He would further submit that neither before the learned Labour Court nor before learned Single Judge, any lumpsum amount was ever offered by the appellant and on that ground also, the appeals may be dismissed.

C/LPA/643/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2022

4. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. It is an undisputed fact that similarly situated workmen like the respondents herein whose services have been terminated, they approached Labour Court and the learned Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages, the said decision was challenged before the coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.10973 of 2004 and learned Single Judge upheld the said decision of the Labour Court. The said decision of learned Single Judge was further upheld by Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1246 of 2015 and thereafter upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition Nos.33057 and 33058 of 2015. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant has tried to offer some lumpsum amount which the workmen might have accepted if the same was offered when the Reference was pending before the Labour Court. However, before learned Single Judge also, no such offer was made. Hence, the said request of the appellant is rejected.

5. Considering the above aspects of the matter, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by learned Single Judge which is based on a decision which has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of similarly situated workmen. Hence, the present appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. Connected applications also stand dismissed.

(A. J. DESAI, J)

(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) SAVARIYA