Gujarat High Court
The Manager, Maksons Finechem Private ... vs Dilipbhai Nathalal Jani on 9 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8705/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8705 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
==========================================================
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 ?
==========================================================
THE MANAGER, MAKSONS FINECHEM PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
DILIPBHAI NATHALAL JANI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 09/01/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. P.C.Chaudhari, learned
advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8705/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2024
undefined
respondent - workman.
2. This petition is filed by the employer company,
challenging the award of Labour Court, Bharuch dated
02.03.2022, in Reference (LCB) No.24 of 2019 wherein the
petitioner has been directed to reinstate workman to his
original post with 50% backwages.
3. Brief facts referred in the petition are as under:
3.1. Respondent - workman was working with the petitioner
- company as driver with effect from 18.06.2014 and was
earning Rs.14,000/- p.m. It was case of the workman that he
was terminated orally on 27.12.2017, aggrieved by which, he
raised Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, Bharuch
registered as Reference (LCB) No.24 of 2019. The Labour
Court, Bharuch upon adjudication directed the petitioner to
reinstate workman with continuity of service and 50%
backwages, aggrieved by which, Company has filed this
petition.
4. Heard Mr. Yogi Gadhia, learned advocate for the
petitioner - company and Mr. P.C. Chaudhari, learned
advocate for the workman.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8705/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2024
undefined
5. Mr. Gadhia, learned advocate submitted that the award
of the Labour Court is erroneous since it has failed in
considering that the petitioner left the job on his own volition
and had worked only for three years. Nothing has been
produced to support his claim of unemployment. Despite
that, the reinstatement with continuity of service and
backwages were directed. He submitted that date of birth of
respondent workman is 13.05.1957. All the documents i.e.
Agreement between the petitioner and workman, Aadhar Card
and Driving license refers to the same date of birth and
therefore admittedly the workman had attained the age of
superannuation prior to the date of award. Therefore, the
award directing reinstatement is contrary to the facts on
record. He thus, submitted that the award of the Labour
Court dated 02.03.2022 deserves interference of this Court.
6. On the other hand, Mr. P.C. Chaudhari, learned advocate
for respondent - workman submitted that the workman had
worked for three years and for no fault of him, his service was
terminated without following due procedure, as contemplated
under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the
Act" for short). He submitted that award deserves no
interference by this Court.
7. Considered the submissions and the evidence on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8705/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2024
undefined
From the award and the documents annexed with the petition,
it is evident that the date of birth of the petitioner is
13.05.1957 and, therefore, the workman had attained the age
of superannuation in the year 2017, which is prior to the date
of award dated 02.03.2022. Therefore, the submissions of
learned advocate for the petitioner that reinstatement is not
possible merit acceptance. Further, considering the nature of
work respondent was doing and his salary, this Court deems it
appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay lumpsum
compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rs. One lakh thirty thousand)
as full and final settlement in lieu of award dated 02.03.2022.
The award of Labour Court is thus modified to the above
extent. Petitioner is directed to pay lumpsum compensation to
respondent workman after due verification through cheque as
directed herein above within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of the order. It is made clear that this order is
passed in facts and circumstances of this case and shall not be
treated as precedent.
8. Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
NAIR SMITA V.
