Gujarat High Court
Ramesh P Khant vs Gujarat Electricity Board on 17 February, 2023
Bench: Mauna M. Bhatt
C/SCA/6578/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6578 of 2009
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6596 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
RAMESH P KHANT
Versus
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RM PARMAR(591) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 17/02/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned cross petitions are filed under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India challenging the judgement and award dated
31.12.2008, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamnagar
in Reference (LCJ) No.490 of 1991, whereby learned labour court
awarded reinstatement with 20% back wages.
C/SCA/6578/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2023
2. Special Civil Application No. 6578 of 2009 is filled by the
workman with the prayer to implement and execute the award of the
labour court dated 03.12.2008 in Reference (LCJ) No.490 of 1991
whereas, Special Civil Application No.6596 of 2009 is filed by the
Gujarat Electricity Board (now Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd.) (PGVCL),
challenging the said award principally on the ground that provisions of
Industrial Disputes Act1947,('the Act" for short) would not be applicable.
3. SCA 6596 of 2009
3.1. It was case of the petitioner company (PGVCL) before the labour
court that the workman was appointed on Nominal Muster Roll as casual
daily rated employee and there was no master servant relationship
between workman and company. The workman worked with the
company only for the period from 16.05.1981 to 15.05.1989 with many
breaks and had not completed 240 days in a year.
3.2. As against that it was the case of the respondent - workman before
the labour court that he had continuously worked with the petitioner
company for the period from 1981 to 1989 and having completed service
C/SCA/6578/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2023
of 8 years, provisions of I. D. Act would be applicable in his case and
therefore his dismissal form service was bad in law.
4. As noticed earlier, the labour court after having heard both the
sides and having considered the evidence on record, vide order dated
31.12.2005, awarded reinstatement of workman with 25% back wages
with cost of Rs.500/-.
5. In respect of the aforesaid judgement and award, these cross
petitions have been filed by the respective parties.
6. This court in SCA 6596 of 2009, while issuing notice dated
06.07.2009, had granted stay against operation and implementation of the
impugned award, on condition of compliance with provisions of section
17-B of the I.D.Act.
7. Heard Mr.Dipak Dave, learned advocate for Paschim Gujarat Vij
Company Ltd. and Mr.R.M.Parmar for the respondent-workman.
8. Appearing for the Company it is brought to the notice of this court by
learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave that at present the respondent- workman
C/SCA/6578/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2023
has attained the age of superannuation and therefore it would not be
appropriate to raise the ground stated in his petition particularly that there
was no breach of condition of Section 25F of the Act and the provisions
of I.D Act would not be applicable. Therefore, relying upon the decision
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BSNL Vs. Bhurumal reported in
2014(7) SCC 177, he fairly submitted that judgement and award of the
labour Court may accordingly be modified. To the above proposition
learned advocate for the workman has no objection.
9. Having heard learned advocates for respective parties and
considering the fact that award of reinstatement now cannot be given
effect as the workman has attained the age of superannuation, in my
opinion, it would meet the ends of justice if the award of the labour court
dated 31.12.2008, is appropriately modified. Therefore, in facts of
present case, without going in to the merits of the matter and considering
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of, BSNL (supra),
the impugned judgement and award passed by the Labour Court dated
31.12.2008 in Reference LCJ No. 490 of 1991 is modified as under:
(i) The petitioner company (PGVCL), is directed to pay a
lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three
C/SCA/6578/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2023
Lacs) to respondent-workman as full and final settlement of
his services rendered with the petitioner-PGVCL.
(ii) The amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as referred in clause (i) above
is directed to be paid by PGVCL to workman, within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order,
failing which, interest at the rate 6% per annum is directed
to be paid for the delayed period.
(iii) SCA No.6596 of 2009, is disposed of with the above
modification. Rule made absolute to the above extent. Stay
granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to cost.
SCA 6578 OF 2009
10. In view of the directions contained in SCA 6596 of 2009,
Mr.R.M.Parmar, learned advocate for the petitioner-workman does not
press Special Civil Application No.6578 of 2009. Special Civil
Application No. 6578 of 2009, is disposed of as not pressed. Rule
discharged. No order as to costs.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
DIPTI PATEL
