Gujarat High Court
Pinkalbhai Rameshbhai Patel vs Partner, Jyoti Automobiles on 6 October, 2023
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1237/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1237 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13536 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1237 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
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 ?
==========================================================
PINKALBHAI RAMESHBHAI PATEL
Versus
PARTNER, JYOTI AUTOMOBILES
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SANGEETA PAHWA for THAKKAR AND PAHWA ADVOCATES(1357)
for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 06/10/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1237/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2023
undefined
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
Having regard to the compass of the controversy involved
and with the consent and request of learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties, the present appeal was
taken up for final consideration today.
1.1 The Appeal is Admitted.
1.2 Learned advocate Mr.Yogi Gadhia waives service of notice
of admission of the appeal.
1.3 Heard learned advocate Ms.Sangeeta Pahwa for the
appellant and learned advocate for the respondent.
2. The challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is directed
against judgment and order dated 4.10.2022 of learned single
Judge. The limited aspect of challenge is in respect of setting
aside of grant of 20% backwages by learned single Judge which
was awarded by the labour court, Valsad in favor of the
appellant- workman.
3. Noticing the facts in the background, the appellant who
was a Pump Operator working under the respondent since
1.3.2006 on salary of Rs.189/- every day, invoked the jurisdiction
of the labour court putting forth the case inter alia that on
14.3.2013, while he reported on duty the first-party employer
driven him out saying that he would have to search out another
job. The prayer before the labour court was reinstatement with
backwages. The proceedings before the labour court, Valsad in
the Reference (LCV) No.39 of 2013 culminated into judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1237/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2023
undefined
and award of the labour court whereby labour court set aside
the termination of the workman dated 14.3.2013 to be illegal
and directed reinstatement of the workman on its original post
with 20% backwages.
3.1 Learned single Judge while dealing with the Special Civil
Application of the employer, challenging the said judgment and
award replaced the view to hold that the grant of 20%
backwages by the labour court was not justified.
3.2 While awarding 20% backwages to the workman, the
labour court noticed and recorded certain relevant aspects on
the basis of the evidence before it. It was recorded that the
workman was used to help his father to earn to make two ends
meet. It was further reasoned that the statement of claim was
filed by the workman after one year, whereas time was further
consumed by him in leading evidence, at the same time it was
found by the labour court that the first-party employer also spent
more than one year in submitting its evidence.
3.3 The central controversy was whether the workman
voluntarily left the services or was driven out by the employer by
terminating his services. This aspect was also applied as
consideration by the labour court for determining the issue of
grant or otherwise of the backwages. The conduct of the
workman weighed with the labour court. On the basis of the all
aforesaid cumulative facts and circumstances operated, the
labour court took the view that grant of 20% backwages would
sub-serve the ends of justice. It was stated in course of hearing
of this Appeal that the workman has been reinstated and has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1237/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2023
undefined
been working under the employer.
4. The impugned judgment and order of learned single Judge
taking away the benefit of 20% backwages and setting aside the
judgment and award of the labour court to that extent, was
assailed by learned advocate for the appellant to submit that the
very aspect of conduct which was a guiding consideration for the
labour court was again adopted as reason by learned single
Judge to hold otherwise. In this regard, the evidence of the
workman, more particularly, the statement in the cross-
examination (figuring at page 65 of the compilation of the
appeal) was relied on by learned advocate for the appellant. It
was highlighted that the workman was ready and willing to join
duty.
4.1 On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent -
employer submitted that at every stage, the employer was ready
to take back the services of the workman, but the workman did
not come forward.
5. It is to be noticed and observed that in his cross-
examination (Exh.13), it was an unequivocal say of the workman
that he was ready to resume duty if the first-party employer
were to permit to join. Exh.13 shows that it was clearly deposed
by the workman when cross-examined on 8.8.2016 that he was
ready and willing to report for duty on the next day itself. There
was nothing to disbelieve the workman.
5.1 Whether there was a bona fide invitation by employer to
the workman to resume the duty or not or whether the workman
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1237/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2023
undefined
himself desisted from joining the duty for one or other reason,
are all the questions in the factual arena. It is the word against
word where the court may not be able to come to a final
conclusion. However, in the overall circumstances, the labour
court took into account the conduct of the workman and sliced
down the grant of backwages to the extent of 20% only.
5.2 In that the labour court applied germane and relevant
factors, aspects and considerations. The aspect whether the
employer was willing to permit the workman to work on duty or
that the workman himself was lethargic, was duly considered
and in that context only, the extent of backwages was
determined. This court carefully went through the impugned
judgment and order of learned single Judge. It could be
immediately noticed that learned single Judge delve into the said
aspect again and set aside the grant of backwages. It was only a
substitution of the view by learned single Judge.
5.3 In exercise of the powers under the Letters Patent
jurisdiction, while examining the challenge to the judgment and
award of the labour court, more particularly, while appreciating
the evidence, already considered by the labour court, a
substitution of view by learned single Judge is not an orderly
exercise of jurisdiction. It is trite that even if two views could be
possible, if the view taken by labour court was reasonable,
learned single Judge had no occasion to interject to set aside the
same.
5.4 The view taken by learned single Judge in setting aside the
grant of 20% backwages tantamount to be mere substitution of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1237/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2023
undefined
view for sake of substitution. It was a substitution of the view of
the labour court which was founded on sound consideration of
facts and was reasonable based on germane consideration. In
such circumstances, in replacing another view of own, learned
single Judge indeed could be said to have committed
jurisdictional error.
6. This court in no uncertain terms find that the factors and
aspects weighed with the labour court in not granting the 100%
backwages but granting only 20% wages were eminently
relevant and germane. The replacement of the said order by
setting aside the grant of 20% backwages could not be
approved. Even otherwise, this court finds that the grant of 20%
backwages was eminently just, proper and legal considering the
totality of the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In the aforesaid view, the impugned judgment and order of
learned single Judge is set aside. The grant of 20% backwages
by the labour court is restored. The amount shall be paid to the
appellant-workman within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of
the present order.
The Civil Application will not survive in view of dismissal of
the Appeal. Accordingly, it is disposed of.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
Manshi
