Aniruddsinh G Rana vs Commissioner
2023 Latest Caselaw 2989 Guj

     C/LPA/230/2023                            ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 230 of 2023
                                  In
             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4327 of 2010
==========================================================
                        ANIRUDDSINH G RANA
                              Versus
                           COMMISSIONER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YV VAGHELA(2450) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                           Date : 18/04/2023

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI)

1. Present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters

Patent Act is preferred against oral judgment dated 27.4.2022

passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application

No.4327 of 2010, whereby petition filed by appellant came to be

dismissed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to present appeal are that appellant

was appointed as Badli Conductor by respondent on 3.9.1987

and was terminated according to appellant orally with effect

from 1.4.1989, which had given rise to an industrial dispute,

which was ultimately referred to Labour Court, Bhavnagar and

C/LPA/230/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023

registered as Reference (LCB) No.67 of 1990. Said reference

was taken up by learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court in

which claim statement was submitted at Exh.7 and reference

was opposed by respondent by filing written statement at

Exh.49. After considering oral as well as documentary evidence,

learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court was pleased to reject

the reference vide order dated 8.1.2008, which had constrained

appellant to prefer a writ petition before this Court being

Special Civil Application No.4327 of 2010.

3. Learned Single Judge after hearing at length both the

sides came to a conclusion that there is no error committed by

learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court in rejecting the

reference as there is no violation of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H

of the Industrial Disputes Act and it was found that in none of

the years, appellant did complete 240 days in a calendar year

preceding termination of services. In a span of two years,

appellant had merely completed 253 days which led learned

Single Judge to dismiss the petition and it is this judgment and

order which has been passed by learned Single Judge is made

subject matter of present Letters Patent Appeal.

C/LPA/230/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023

4. Learned advocate Mr. Y.V. Vaghela appearing on behalf of

appellant has submitted that learned Single Judge has

committed an error in coming to a conclusion that there is no

violation of Section 25-F or 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act

and in fact, learned Single Judge ought to have considered that

undisputedly, appellant had worked in respondent Corporation

right from 1987 till March 1989 and as such has submitted that

error committed by learned Single Judge deserves to be

corrected.

5. It has been submitted that even if there is no apparent

violation of Section of 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, then also,

when Sections 25-G and 25-H are contended to be violated,

instead of reinstatement at least lumpsum compensation ought

to have been awarded to appellant on account of age of

appellant and that having not been done, order passed by

learned Single Judge deserves to be corrected. It has further

been submitted that even apart from that learned Presiding

Officer has also erroneously emphasized upon completion of 240

days. In fact, even if 240 days are not completed, in absence of

C/LPA/230/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023

violation of Section 25-F, learned Presiding Officer ought to

have considered violation of Section 25-G and 25-H of Industrial

Disputes Act and as such against that serious error which has

been committed by learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court,

learned Single Judge ought to have come to a definite

conclusion. Having not done so, error committed by learned

Single Judge deserves to be corrected.

6. In the alternative, learned advocate Mr. Vaghela has

submitted that irrespective of such technicality, at least,

respondent authority may be directed to award lumpsum

compensation and for that purpose has requested to issue notice

upon respondent authority. No other submissions have been

made.

7. As against this, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw

appearing on advance copy has vehemently opposed the petition

on the ground that there is no error committed by learned

Single. On the contrary, both the Courts, i.e. learned Presiding

Officer of Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge have

come to a definite conclusion that there is no violation of

C/LPA/230/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023

Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act and appellant has not

completed 240 days which would attract the provisions of

retrenchment. Hence, when minute exercise has been

undertaken by learned Single Judge, case is not made out by

appellant to call for any interference. Mr. Munshaw has further

submitted that with respect to an issue relating to lumpsum

compensation, learned Single Judge has also dealt with and

considered and as such, in absence of any distinguishable

material, no view to be substituted in exercise of appellate

jurisdiction and as such has submitted that possible view taken

by learned Single Judge may not be disturbed and even apart

from that conclusion arrived at is concurrent against the

appellant and as such, petition has rightly been dismissed by

learned Single Judge. Hence, looking to the scope contained in

Letters Patent, no interference be made.

8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties

and having gone through the order passed by learned Single

Judge, we have noticed that after appreciation of material on

record, including claim statement vis-a-vis written statement

filed by respondent, a conclusion is arrived at that there is no

C/LPA/230/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023

violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act since

appellant undisputedly had not completed 240 days in a

preceding year and even apart from that, violation of Section

25-G and H which has been alleged is also gone into by learned

Single Judge and has arrived at a conclusion that there is no

violation of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act

and apart from that, we have noticed that learned Single Judge

on the basis of appreciation of material on record and keeping

in view a well settled proposition of law laid down by series of

decisions, a view is taken by learned Single Judge that even no

case is made out for lumpsum compensation as well and as such

when on true analysis of material, a view is taken by learned

Single Judge, we see no error in the order and since every

aspect which has been contended has been dealt with minutely

by learned Single Judge, there appears to be no perversity or

irregularity of any nature in exercising jurisdiction.

9. Apart from that, from perusal of the order passed by

Presiding Officer of Labour Court as well, it appears that a

detailed order is passed while rejecting the reference submitted

by appellant and such detailed conclusion of Presiding Officer is

C/LPA/230/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023

also examined. Learned Single Judge has thoroughly gone into

and arrived at a conclusion which is a possible view and as such

in absence of any distinguishable material, we are not inclined

to substitute our view, even otherwise not possible to arrive at a

different conclusion. Hence, on conjoint reading of both the

orders, we are of the clear opinion that no case is made out by

appellant to call for any interference.

10. At this stage, we may point out that we are exercising

appellate jurisdiction under Letters Patent and peripheral limit

as prescribed by Hon'ble Apex Court on such issue is well

defined. We deem it proper to quote hereunder relevant

observations contained in paragraph -5 of the decision taken in

the case Management of Narendra & Company Private

Limited v. Workmen of Narendra & Company reported in

(2016) 3 SCC 340:-

"5. Once the learned Single Judge having seen the records had come to the conclusion that the industry was not functioning after January 1995, there is no justification in entering a different finding without any further material before the Division Bench. The Appellate Bench ought to have noticed that the statement of MW 3 is itself part of the evidence before the Labour Court. Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the Appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no

C/LPA/230/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023

interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief."

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the

overall circumstances prevailing on record, we are of the clear

opinion that no case is made out to call for any interference.

Accordingly, appeal being merit-less stands DISMISSED and

order passed by learned Single Judge is hereby confirmed.

Sd/-

(ASHUTOSH SHASTRI, J)

Sd/-

(J. C. DOSHI,J) OMKAR