Bansi Kantibhai Chauhan vs Shri Manager , Ahmedabad ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6965 Guj

                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/SCA/3595/2023                             JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2023

                                                                                  undefined




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3595 of 2023


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA M. SAREEN
==========================================================

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 ?

==========================================================
                   BANSI KANTIBHAI CHAUHAN
                             Versus
        SHRI MANAGER , AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
SINGHI & CO(2725) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA M. SAREEN

                             Date : 21/09/2023

                            ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,1947, the petitioner has prayed for the following

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/3595/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2023

undefined

reliefs:

"(a) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order calling for the record and proceeding of the Reference (LCA) (T) No. 929 of 2018 from the learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad and after perusing the same, be pleased to quashed and set aside the order passed by the Learned Labour Court on 08.12.2022 at Annexure- A.

(b) During the admission, pendency and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay the operation, execution and implementation of the order passed by the Learned Labour Court in Reference (LCA) (T) No. 929 of 2018."

2. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. H.S Munshaw waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.1.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was working for the respondent-Corporation. He discharged his duties as the regular workman for a period of four years before being discontinued from services on 03.10.2000. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of discontinuation of services had preferred a Reference case before the Labour Court and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 08.12.2022. The petitioner submits that having worked for a period of 240 days compliance of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act was proved but the Labour Court has not considered the said aspect and ultimately, had rejected the reference solely on the ground that the dispute came to be raised after a period of 18 years. Considering the legal position, the provisions of Limitation Act would not apply with the reference raised in the Act. The petitioner is before this Court as

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/3595/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2023

undefined

the Labour Court has rejected the reference of the petitioner- workman.

4. Learned advocate Mr. I.G Joshi for Singhi & Co on behalf of the petitioner submits that similarly situated set of workmen had preferred petition before this Court and they have been granted lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- by way of order passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeals. The petitioner- workmen who were entitled for the said benefits in the aforesaid petitions had worked for substantive years as Gardner for the respondent- Corporation. It is also submitted that similar treatment was given to another set of 36 workmen of the same Corporation, who were also granted lump sum compensation by the Honourable Court. He further submits that based on the aforementioned orders and upon relying on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, a reasonable lump sum compensation may be awarded to the petitioner-workman.

5. Learned advocate Mr. H.S Munshaw has submitted that though the issue is covered by the decision of Division Bench and it is also not in dispute that the said order of the Division Bench is not yet challenged by the respondent-Corporation. It is also submitted that considering the fact that there was delay of 14 years and here in this case there is a delay of 18 years, which is an admitted delay. Therefore, reasonable lump sum fixed compensation can be awarded in accordance to the service of the employees.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Reliance was placed upon the order of the Division Bench in LPA No.214 of 2022 and the order of Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 4757 of 2022 with the allied matters. This Court is in total agreement with the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/3595/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2023

undefined

observations made by the Labour Court as well as this Court as there was delay in filing reference made by the appellant and hence under the provisions of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the learned Labour Court has rightly not granted any reinstatement with or without any back wages. Considering the totality of the facts of the case lump sum compensation has to be granted. Having considered the case on hand the present petitioner-workman had worked for a period of 4 years as Gardner with the respondent-Corporation and the peculiar facts and circumstance arising out of the petition it would be just and proper and reasonable to award a lump sum compensation by way of monetary benefit. Considering the delay of 18 years in filing the reference, taking the amount as Rs.24,000/- per annum for a period of 4 years, comes to an amount of Rs.96,000/-.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the respondent-Corporation is directed to pay Rs.96,000/- to the petitioner-workman, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after proper verification. It is clarified that the lump sum amount does not bear any interest if paid within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

8. With the aforementioned observations, the petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(RAJENDRA M. SAREEN,J) Radhika