Gujarat High Court
Laxmanbhai Lilachand Kadiya vs Manager on 1 August, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13315/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13315 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
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 ?
================================================================
LAXMANBHAI LILACHAND KADIYA
Versus
MANAGER & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PH PATHAK(665) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 01/08/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles
14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13315/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the
award dated 6.3.2013 passed by the Labour Court,
Mehsana in Reference (LCM) No. 620 of 2008 (Old LCK
No. 307 of 2004) seeking following relief/s:-
"6. A. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an order,
writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Certiorary or
other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the
impugned order passed by the Labour Court in
reference LCM NO. 620/2008 to the effect where it deny
benefits of reinstatement with consequential benefits, as
illegal, unjust, arbitrary and be pleased to quashed and
set aside the same by directing the respondent to
reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential
benefits.
B. Be pleased to declare that the action of the
respondent No.1 in terminating the services of the
petitioner is illegal, unjust, arbitrary and be pleased to
quashed and set aside the same. Further be pleased to
direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in
service with all consequential benefits.
C. Pending admission and final disposal of the petition
be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the
petitioner in service and pay him salary accordingly.
D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit
and proper in interest of justice. "
2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the
petition has joined the services with respondent
Nagarpalika as a clerk w.e.f. 1.6.1992. The petitioner was
being paid Rs. 2300/ as monthly salary. The respondent
had w.e.f. 9.1.2004 has terminated the services of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13315/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
petitioner without any notice or notice pay. The petitioner
has put about 11 years service with the respondent
Nagarpalika. That the said action of the respondent to
terminate the services of the petitioner was in violation of
the provisions of Sec. 25(F), (G).(H) &(N) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. Therefore, the petitioner approached the
Assistant Labour Commissioner, who has referred the
dispute before the Labour Court, Mehasana for
adjudication.
2.1 In view of the aforesaid facts, the Reference LCM NO.
620/2008 (OLD LCK NO. 307/2004) was filed before the
Labour Court, Mehasana.
2.2 The petitioner filled his statement of claim before the
Labour Court stating that he has served with the
respondent from last 11 years and the services of the
petitioner was terminated on 9.1.2004 without following
due procedure of law and without following the provisions
of Sec. 25(F),(G), and (N) of the Industrial Dispute Act &
Rule 61 of Gujarat Rules.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13315/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
2.3 The respondent has filed the reply of the written
statement of the petitioner. The respondent has denied
that the petitioner has served with the respondent for 11
years. The respondent has in his reply denied all the
contentions of the statement of claim filed by the
petitioner.
2.4 The Labour Court, after considering the evidences of
both the sides and material produced on record has come
to the conclusion that the action of the respondent to
terminate the services of the petitioner without any due
procedure of law is illegal and arbitrary. But instead of
awarding reinstatement with consequential benefits to
the petitioner, the Labour Court has awarded Rs. 50,000/-
as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.
2.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has
preferred present petition.
3. Heard Mr. P.H. Pathak, learned Counsel for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13315/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
petitioner and Mr. Deepak P. Sahchela, learned Counsel
for the respondent.
4. Mr. P.H. Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner has served for 11 years and
he was working on sanctioned set up, however,
respondent has terminated service of the petitioner after
long span of 11 years without following due procedure.
He has further submitted that the impugned award
passed by the Labour Court towards lumpsum
compensation is, on lower side. He has further submitted
that petitioner was working up to 2004, however the
Labour Court has not considered all these aspects while
passing the impugned award and awarded only
Rs.50,000/- as lumpsum compensation.
4.1 Mr. Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner has
further submitted that the petitioner was earning
Rs.2300/- per month and though, there was no reason and
without following any due process and without following
the provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 under
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13315/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
Sections 25-B, F, G and H the respondent has terminated
the service of the petitioner and therefore, the impugned
award passed by the Labour Court is erroneous, unjust
and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4.2 Lastly, Mr. Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner
urges that in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court may
enhance the amount of compensation, in view of the fact
that since more than 20 years, the petitioner is out of job.
5. Per contra, Mr. Deepak B. Sanchela, learned
Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the
petitioner was not regularly appointed as, he was daily
wager clerk appointed without following the recruitment
process. He has further submitted that as per the circular
issued by the State Government, the State Government
has abolished the octroi and therefore, persons working
in octroi department, are to be adjusted in the other
departments.
5.1 Mr. Deepak B. Sanchela, learned Counsel for the
respondent has submitted that so far as daily wagers are
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13315/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
concerned, there is no vacancy to absorb the daily wagers
in the said department.
5.2 Mr. Deepak B. Sanchela, learned Counsel for the
respondent has further submitted that upto 2004 the
respondent has provided work to the petitioner and
ultimately considering the financial condition of the
Nagarpalika and sanctioned set up, the Nagarpalika is
unable to continue the service of the petitioner and
therefore, after considering all these aspects, service of
the petitioner came to be terminated, as he was
appointed purely on post of daily wager.
5.3 Mr. Deepak B. Sanchela, learned Counsel for the
respondent has submitted that the petitioner has also not
proved that he has completed 240 days in the preceding
calendar years and therefore, he is not entitled for any
retrenchment compensation under Section 25H of the
Industrial Disputes Act. He has submitted that after
considering documentary evidence and after considering
the submissions of both the sides, the Labour Court has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13315/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
rightly passed the impugned award and awarded amount
of Rs.50,000/- as lumpsum compensation to the
petitioner.
5.4 Mr. Deepak B. Sanchela, learned Counsel for the
respondent urges before the Court that this Court may
not interfere in the impugned order and the same may be
confirmed and present petition may be allowed.
6. I have considered the material available on record
and the relevant documents as well as submissions
advanced by both the sides. I have also gone through the
impugned award passed by the Labour Court.
7. It appears from the record that the petitioner has
worked as daily wager for almost 11 years and though,
the order passed by the Labour Court for production of
documents, the same was not complied with by the
respondent Nagarpalika and that was observed by the
Labour Court while passing the impugned order. Even
Labour Court has also called for the documents with
regard to the muster roll, salary sleep and other circular /
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13315/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
resolution passed by the State Government with regard to
the sanctioned set up, but the said documents were not
produced before the Labour Court. The Labour Court has
also observed in paragraph No. 9 that the petitioner has
worked more than 240 days in preceding calendar year
and he was working on fixed salary of Rs.2300/- per
month and he a daily wager. The said fact not
controverted not and therefore, I am of the opinion that
the order passed by the Labour Court awarding
Rs.50,000/- towards compensation is on very lower side.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the submissions advanced by the contesting parties,
the amount is required to be enhanced from Rs.50,000/-
to Rs.3,00,000/-.
9. In view of the above, the respondent Nagarpalika is
hereby directed to pay total Rs.3,00,000/- to the
petitioner within period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of writ of present order after verifying the
bank details of the petitioner and after following due
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13315/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
process, through R.T.G.S. only.
10. The impugned award dated 6.3.2013 passed by the
Labour Court, Mehsana in Reference (LCM) No. 620 of
2008 (Old LCK No. 307 of 2004) is hereby modified to the
aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
