Dhoraji Municipality vs Dinesh Bhavanbhai Chudasama
2023 Latest Caselaw 2471 Guj

      C/SCA/20786/2018                              ORDER DATED: 23/03/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20786 of 2018

==========================================================
                              DHORAJI MUNICIPALITY
                                     Versus
                         DINESH BHAVANBHAI CHUDASAMA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR BB GOGIA(5851) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS KAJAL L KALWANI(6623) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                                Date : 23/03/2023

                                 ORAL ORDER

1. The present Special Civil Application impugns the judgment and award dated 23.04.2018 passed in Reference (LCR) No.393 of 2009 by the learned Labour Court, Rajkot directing the petitioner Municipality to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages to the respondent workman.

2. The brief facts in the present case are as follows :-

2.1 The respondent No.1 workman has claimed that he had worked with the petitioner Municipality for two years before he came to be retrenched on 10.02.2000 by way of oral termination. Aggrieved, the respondent workman raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Rajkot, who, by letter dated 29.05.2000, made a reference to the Labour Court, Rajkot.

       C/SCA/20786/2018                         ORDER DATED: 23/03/2023




2.2     Notice came to be issued to the petitioner Municipality. The

respondent workman filed his claim and the petitioner Municipality filed its written statement. The evidence came to be led by the parties.

2.3 By the impugned judgment and award, the learned Labour Court, Rajkot was pleased to hold that the termination of the respondent workman was bad in law and in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, the learned Labour Court awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent workman.

2.4 Aggrieved, the petitioner Municipality has filed the present Special Civil Application.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Nilesh Koyani appearing on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi for the petitioner Municipality submits that the respondent workman had not completed the requisite 240 days and therefore, he was not entitled to any relief. He submits that the respondent workman has not cogently proved that he had worked for 240 days in a year since his appointment till his termination. He therefore submits that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act will not be attracted in the present case and the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court be interfered with and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Anand Gogia appearing for the respondent workman submits that the respondent workman has duly proved that he has worked for 240 days. He submits that it has come on record that in the preceding year, the respondent workman had completed 241 days and therefore, he was entitled to protection under the Industrial Disputes Act. He further submits that

C/SCA/20786/2018 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2023

the learned Labour Court has given cogent reasons for holding that there is a violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He therefore submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court is just and proper and the same be confirmed.

5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents on record.

6. It is seen from the record that the respondent workman had filed an application below Exh.9 for production of attendance register, pay register, vouchers and pay bills from 1996 till 10.02.2000 i. e. the date of his termination. By Mark 12/2, the attendance in respect of the respondent workman came to be produced before the learned Labour Court. A perusal of the said document shows that in the preceding year from 11.02.1999 till 10.02.2000 i. e. the date of oral termination, the respondent workman has worked for 241 days. In view thereof, the learned Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the workman has completed 241 days of service in the preceding year and therefore, he is entitled to protection under the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, it is an admitted position that upon termination of the respondent workman, the petitioner had not given any notice, notice pay or any compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In view thereof, there is a violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act in the present case and the lumpsum compensation as granted to the respondent workman cannot be interfered with. The impugned judgment and award is just and proper and the findings are based on the evidence produced on record.

C/SCA/20786/2018 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2023

7. In view thereof, the present Special Civil Application is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)

cmk