Gujarat High Court
Hitubha Ghoghubha Zala @ ... vs State Of Gujarat on 25 September, 2023
Bench: Devan M. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1271/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1271 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14822 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2018
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1271 of 2019
==========================================================
HITUBHA GHOGHUBHA ZALA @ HITENDASINH VIKRAMSINH ZALA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. SAHIL M SHAH(6318) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. MANAN MEHTA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 25/09/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. Sahil Shah for the petitioner and
learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta for the
respondent State and its authorities.
2. Preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the preset appeal is
directed against judgment and order of learned single Judge, whereby
learned single Judge has directed to pay Rs. 40,000/- towards lumpsum
compensation to the appellant workman.
3. The facts in the background showed that judgment and award
dated 30.08.2014 came to be passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in the
Reference (LCR) No. 81 of 2008 in favour of the appellant workman.
The first party employer was directed to reinstate the workman on his
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1271/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2023
undefined
original post with continuity of service, however, without backwages.
The State-the first party employer challenged the said judgment and
award by filling Special Civil Application No. 14822 of 2015, which was
dealt with by learned single Judge alongwith other petition to result into
common judgment and order dated 14.2.2018. Learned single Judge held
that relief of granting lumpsum compensation in lieu of relief of
reinstatement would be a proper relief in the facts of the case. Rs.
40,000/- towards lumpsum compensation was granted observing further
that the said workman had already received last drawn salary for two and
half years from June, 2015 till January, 2018.
4. The principal limb of contention seeking to assail the judgment and
order learned single Judge granting compensation as above, was that it
was too less compensation in quantum. Even if learned single Judge was
to substitute the relief, the compensation could have been on higher side,
it was submitted. This court does not find any merit in this submission
inasmuch as the facts showed that the workman served for 10 years from
1989 to 1999, however, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was invoked
after gap of 10 years in the year 2008. It was submitted in this light by
learned Assistant Government Pleader that when the dispute was raised it
could have been treated as stale dispute to decline any relief whatsoever
for the workman. The decision of the Supreme Court in Prabhakar vs.
Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another [(2015) 15
SCC 1], was relied on, which addressed the aspect of belated reference to
raise the industrial dispute which had became stale.
5. While on one hand learned advocate for the appellant submitted
that the relief has been mouled by granting lumpsum compensation,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1271/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2023
undefined
which is however less, the court noticed the following observations of the
Supreme Court in Prabhakar (supra),
"We may hasten to clarify that in those cases where the court finds that
dispute still existed, though raised belatedly, it is always permissible for
the court to take the aspect of delay into consideration and mould the
relief. In such cases, it is still open for the court to either grant
reinstatement without back wages or lesser back wages or grant
compensation instead of reinstatement. We are of the opinion that the
law on this issue has to be applied in the aforesaid perspective in such
matters." (para 43)
5.1 The aforesaid principles are precisely applied by learned single
Judge in granting the lumpsum compensation.
6. As far as the quantum is concerned, delay of 10 years on the part of
the workman, has to be counted for moulding any relief. If the
compensation is determined accordingly, no error could be attributed in
that regard. Even otherwise, the court will be loath to substitute its own
view in exercise of Letters Patent jurisdiction when while awarding the
compensation and determining the quantum, the aspect of delay of 10
years on part of the workman in approaching the Labour Court is kept in
view by learned single Judge.
7. The challenge fails. The appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main Appeal, no orders are required to
be passed in the Civil Application. It accordingly stands disposed of.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(D. M. DESAI,J)
C.M. JOSHI
