Gujarat High Court
Manjulaben Babubhai Parmar vs Presiding Officer on 29 August, 2023
Bench: Devan M. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/269/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 269 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6442 of 2020
==========================================================
MANJULABEN BABUBHAI PARMAR
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PH PATHAK(665) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS REENA M KAMANI(6007) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KEYUR A VYAS(3247) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 29/08/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
The appellant-workman, who was Safaikamdar working under the
respondent Kalol Nagar Palika since 1985 on a monthly pay of
Rs. 1500/-, invoked the jurisdiction of Labour Court, Kalol, raising
industrial dispute that oral termination of her services with effect from
15.2.1997 was in breach of provisions of sections 25F, 25G and 25N of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, consequentially sought relief of
reinstatement with full backwages. The said Reference ended up with
deliverance of judgment and award by Labour Court dated 3.8.2019,
whereby partially allowing the Reference, the Labour Court instead of
granting relief of reinstatement, directed the first party employer to pay
lumpsum compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/269/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2023
undefined
2. The petitioner challenged the said judgment and order by filling
Special Civil Application, to declare the judgment and award of the
Labour Court to be illegal and to reinstate the petitioner with continuity
of service and with all consequential benefits. The petition came to be
dismissed by learned single Judge as per judgment and order dated
8.8.2022, in turn confirming the judgment and award of the Labour
Court.
3. It is against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 8.8.2022 of
learned single Judge that the present Letters Patent Appeal is preferred
under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellant workman.
4. While assailing the order of learned single Judge, which confirmed
the judgment and award of the Labour Court, learned advocate Ms. Reena
Kamani for learned advocate Mr. P.H.Pathak for the appellant mainly
harped that even if the Labour Court was to consider the alternative relief
of lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, the compensation of
Rs. 25000/- could be said to be a meager amount. She further submitted
that the Labour Court had recorded findings about breach of mandatory
provisions of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, which
would have, as such, entitled the appellant to the relief of reinstatement.
Learned advocate for the appellant-workman, however, submitted that
atleast compensation deserves to be enhanced. In support of her
submissions, learned advocate for the appellant relied on the decision of
the Division Bench of this Court in Mehsana District Panchayat v.s
Satuji Nathaji Chavda in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1683 of 2011.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/269/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2023
undefined
4.1 On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Keyur Vyas submitted
that award of the Labour Court was proper and rightly affirmed by
learned single Judge. He submitted that the Reference was marred by
delay of 13 years. By pressing into service the decision of the Apex
Court in Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department
[(2015) 15 SCC 1], which was referred to and relied on by the Division
Bench of this Court in Gamanbhai Amthabhai Begadiya vs.
Administrative/Deputy Collector in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1789
of 2019 and cognate appeals, it was submitted that in view of long delay,
it was a case of dismissal of the reference itself. However, the Labour
Court has been lenient to grant the relief of payment of lumpsum
compensation. He also highlighted the reasoning supplied by learned
single Judge in the impugned judgment inter alia that the policy of
industrial adjudication is that a stale claim should not be generally
encouraged.
4.2 Dealing with at the outset the decision of the Division Bench of
this court in Mehsana District Panchayat (supra) relied on behalf of the
appellant workman, in that case the workman had served between 1986
and 1989. Taking into account the attendant aspects, the Division Bench
held that in the facts of that case, granting relief of reinstatement after gap
of 30 years, no useful purpose would be served. What was surfaced was
the aspect that there was time gap of 30 years.
5. Adverting to the merits of this case, as stated above, the petitioner
was working under the Nagarpalika as daily rated workman as
Safaikamdar since 1985 and as per her case worked upto 15.2.1997. Her
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/269/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2023
undefined
services came to be orally terminated, requiring her to approach the
Labour court.
5.1 It may be true that the Labour Court has recorded finding about the
breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, however, as per the
settled law, in all cases breach of section 25F of the Act may not
necessarily lead to the grant of relief of reinstatement. The services of the
workman was terminated in the year 1997. The Reference was made in
the year 2010 and the award was delivered by the Labour Court on
3.8.2019. More than 23 years have elapsed since the time the services of
the appellant daily rated Safaikamdar was terminated. The interregnum
from the date of termination till the date of consideration of the relief of
reinstatement, runs into 23 years. In that light, the Labour Court was
justified in taking a view that relief of reinstatement would not be a
proper relief, but lumpsum compensation could be awarded.
6. As far as the quantam of compensation awarded, the submission of
learned advocate for the appellant was that it was on lower side. This
court is unable to countenance the submission in view of the aspect
staring on the face that the workman sat silent for 13 years before
approaching the Labour Court. The inordinate delay of 13 years in
seeking Reference is most relevant factor to be accounted for while
granting and moulding relief to the workman. In the circumstances, when
Rs. 25000/- is awarded as lumpsum compensation, it has duly taken into
consideration the aspect of delay, which operates against the workman.
The lumpsum compensation awarded by the Labour Court and confirmed
by learned single Judge, could be said to be proper and justified in view
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/269/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2023
undefined
of all attendant circumstances including the glaring aspect of delay of 13
years in seeking relief before the Labour Court.
7. The challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal fails. The appeal is
dismissed.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(D. M. DESAI,J)
C.M. JOSHI
