Gujarat High Court
Nitinkumar Sundarlal More vs Manager on 7 February, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11700/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11700 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
================================================================
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 ?
================================================================
NITINKUMAR SUNDARLAL MORE
Versus
MANAGER & 1 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR K R MISHRA(6312) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
PRABHATSINH J PARMAR(7996) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KV GADHIA(319) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 07/02/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The employee has filed this petition challenging the
award of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-(CGIT)
cum-Labour Court dated 29.12.2016 in Reference (CGITA)
No.1402 of 2004, wherein CGIT-Labour Court awarded
lumpsum compensation of Rs.60,000/- in lieu of
reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11700/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2024
undefined
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.R. Mishra for the
petitioner and learned advocate Mr. K.V. Gadhia for
respondent - Bank.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner-employee worked with various branches of
respondent - Bank for the period 24.03.1998 till
06.08.2002. It was case of the petitioner before CGIT-
Labour Court that he worked diligently for more than 8
hours a day and had completed 240 days in a year.
Without any cogent reason and without following the due
procedure under the provisions of the Act, his services
came to be terminated with effect from 06.08.2002, which
the CGIT-Labour Court erred in not considering. Though,
the evidence in relation to completion of 240 days a year
was on record the Labour Court eared in not considering
the same. Despite that without following due procedure,
the petitioner was terminated and thus there was breach of
Section 25 F of the Act. The CGIT-Labour Court instead
awarding reinstatement with continuity and backwages,
awarded meager amount of Rs.60,000/- towards lumpsum
compensation. The compensation awarded is meager, and
therefore, present petition is filed. However, Learned
Advocate fairly submitted that if reasonable compensation
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11700/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2024
undefined
is awarded, the grievance of the petitioner would be
appropriately redressed.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Gadhia for
the respondent - Bank submitted that, before the CGIT-
Labour Court the employee failed in proving his case of
completion of 240 days, in a preceding year and therefore,
there is no breach of Section 25 F of the Act. More so,
the employee was called for work as daily wager and he
used to work in different branches of respondent - Bank
in the city of Navsari, and therefore, he cannot be said to
be a full-time employee of the respondent - Bank. The
employee was paid as a daily wager which the CGIT-
Labour Court has appropriately considered, and therefore,
no interference is required.
5. Considered the submissions and the documents on
record. It is noticed from the award that the CGIT-Labour
Court recorded that from the Calendar years 1998 to 2002
the employee had only worked in the year 2000 for more
than 240 days. The fact of employee not being worked
continuously in one branch and he used to work for
different branches of respondent - Bank was also
considered. However, considering the period for which the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11700/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2024
undefined
employee had worked from the year 1998 to 2002, the
amount awarded as a lumpsum compensation of
Rs.60,000/-, in the opinion of this Court, it is too meager.
Moreover, considering the submissions of learned advocate
for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing
to accept the appropriate compensation, this Court is of
the opinion that without going into the merits of the
matter and without going into the other grounds raised by
the petitioner, it would meet ends of justice, if the case of
the petitioner is considered for enhancement of
compensation. This Court is of the opinion that
considering the number of years the petitioner had worked
and since he had continuously worked these years for 8
hours of a day, by working in different branches of
respondent - Bank, interest of justice is meted out if the
compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner
over and above the compensation awarded by the Labour
Court of Rs. 60,000/-. Thus, the total lumpsum
compensation payable to the petitioner shall be Rs.
3,10,000/-. Since, respondent Bank had paid the amount of
Rs. 60,000/- as awarded by the CGIT-Labour Court, the
balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- is directed to be paid by
respondent - Bank to the petitioner within a period of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11700/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2024
undefined
four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The
award stands modified accordingly.
6. This order is passed in the facts and circumstances of
this Court and shall not be treated as precedent.
7. With the above observations and directions, the
petition stands disposed of as partly allowed. No order as
to costs. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
Manoj Kumar Rai
