Ficom Organics Ltd vs Dharmendra H Shah
2023 Latest Caselaw 2009 Guj

     C/LPA/2341/2010                            JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 2341 of 2010


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

================================================================
                          FICOM ORGANICS LTD
                                 Versus
                          DHARMENDRA H SHAH
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KM PATEL SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455)
for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PH PATHAK(665) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
          and
          HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
          PRACHCHHAK

                            Date : 02/03/2023

                            ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK)

C/LPA/2341/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2023

1. The appellant - original petitioner has filed present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.07.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.1361 of 2000 whereby the learned Single Judge partly allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court only qua 50% back wages and directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent in service.

2. Short facts of the present case are that the respondent - workman was appointed as a Trainee Plant Operator for a period of six months. It is alleged that the performance of the respondent was not satisfactory, he was terminated from the services. The respondent filed Reference before the Labour Court, which came to be partly allowed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellant - original petitioner has preferred captioned petition before this Court, which came to be partly allowed and quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court by the learned Single Judge.

3. Feeling and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

4. Heard Mr.K. M. Patel, learned senior counsel for Mr.Palak Thakkar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.P. H. Pathak,

C/LPA/2341/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2023

learned counsel for the respondent.

5. During the course of arguments of the present appeal, consensus is arrived at between the learned counsel appearing for the parties and learned counsel appearing for both the parties have submitted that this Court may pass appropriate order by awarding lump sum amount of compensation as deemed fit. Considering the dispute involved in the present case and considering the length of services rendered by the respondent - workman, we are of the considered opinion that if the respondent - workman is ordered to be paid lump sum amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, then, the ends of justice would be met appropriately.

6. This Court deems fit to pass the following order:-

"The appellant is directed to pay an amount of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondent

- workman as full and final settlement of the claim and the workman will not challenge any further. Such amount shall be paid to the respondent - workman by the appellant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order."

7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present appeal stands disposed of only on the consensus arrived at between the parties and upon the request made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. There shall be no

C/LPA/2341/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2023

order as to costs.

8. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the case.

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL