Gujarat High Court
Patel Kalpeshkumar Shankerlal vs Ahmedabad District Co Operative Bank ... on 9 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9449/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9449 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT 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 ?
==========================================================
PATEL KALPESHKUMAR SHANKERLAL
Versus
AHMEDABAD DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TR MISHRA(483) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 09/01/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The workman has filed this petition with following
prayers: -
"(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9449/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2024
undefined
direction and/or writ in the nature of certiorari and/
or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,
quashing and setting aside the impugned order
passed by the Labour Court marked ANN.A to this
petition and be further pleased to quash and set
aside the order passed by the Industrial Court
marked ANN.B in so far as the said order denies
reinstatement and be pleased to direct the
respondent to reinstate the petitioner with
backwages and continuity of service; letter dated
13/14th May, 2009 marked ANN.A to this petition,
being illegal, perverse and contrary to record;
(B) Any other and such further relief as the Hon'ble
court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice
together with costs;
2. In T. Application No.228 of 2000, Labour Court rejected
the application of workman seeking reinstatement with
continuity of service and backwages. Against the order of
Labour Court dated 05.12.2007, the workman preferred an
Appeal (IC) No.4 of 2008 before Industrial Court, Ahmedabad,
which was partly allowed by granting lumpsum compensation
of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement with continuity of
service and backwages. Aggrieved by the order in Appeal (IC)
No 4 of 2008, the present petition is filed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9449/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2024
undefined
3. Facts, in brief, are as under:
The petitioner-workman was appointed by the
respondent-bank as Clerk with effect from 26.02.1998 and was
drawing salary of Rs.1620/- per month. His services came to
be terminated on 15.02.2000. Aggrieved by which, the
workman preferred T. Application No.228 of 2000 before
Labour Court challenging the termination with a prayer to
reinstate him with full backwages. Labour Court rejected T
Application No.228 of 2000 vide order dated 05.12.2007.
Aggrieved by order dated 05.12.2007, the workman preferred
an appeal being Appeal (IC) No.4 of 2008. The said appeal was
partly allowed by directing the respondent-bank to pay a sum
of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and backwages.
Aggrieved by the appeal order, the present petition is filed.
4. Heard Mr.U.T.Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner.
He submitted that in the order dated 23.07.2009 in Appeal (IC)
No.4 of 2008, the Industrial Court failed to consider illegal
termination of the workman. It is not in dispute that the
workman worked for more than 2 years and had completed
240 days in a year, despite that, without following the due
procedure, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act,1947 ("the Act" for short), Industrial Court partly allowed
the appeal by awarding meager amount of Rs.50,000/-. He
submitted that the observations of the Industrial Court that
workman was not made permanent is of no consequences
because since the workman was terminated illegally, the due
procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Act is
required to be followed, which was not done in the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9449/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2024
undefined
case. He fairly submitted that by passage of time, it is not
possible to reinstate the workman, and therefore his case may
be considered for grant of appropriate compensation.
4.1 He submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ram Manohar Lohia, Joint Hospital V. Munna Prasad Saini
reported in 2021 AIR(SC)-0-4400, when the service of the
workman was terminated illegally after having worked for 2
years, has granted lumpsum compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
Having placed reliance on the said decision, he submitted that
accordingly, this case may also be considered for grant of
lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages.
5. Though served, no appearance has been entered on
behalf of the respondent-bank.
6. Considering the issue involved and as the matter is of the
year 2009, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the same
finally on merits.
7. Having considered the submissions, it is noticed that the
petitioner was appointed by the respondent-bank as Clerk on
26.02.1998 and he worked continuously till 14.02.2000. As
held by Industrial Court that in the order dated 23.07.2009,
the advocate appearing for the bank had accepted the fact that
the workman was working since 26.02.1998 to 14.02.2000.
These facts are further supported by the bank passbook as well
as the witnesses, which have been examined. Thus, Industrial
Court has held that workman was working with the
respondent-bank as Clerk for the period from 26.02.1998 to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9449/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2024
undefined
14.02.2000. It is also noticed that despite having continuously
worked for 240 days a year, no procedure was followed prior
to his termination. The Industrial Court considered that he was
not made permanent. The Court further held that bank being
public body, every recruitment is to be done after following
the recruitment process and therefore, the workman has no
lien over the said post. This Court is of the opinion that it is
true that the workman has no lien over regularization.
However, since no procedure was followed prior to workman's
termination, it is a case of illegal termination.
8. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Industrial Court
that the termination was illegal is correct and legal. However,
Industrial Court did not grant reinstatement because the
workman was not made permanent. However, at this stage,
considering the passage of time this Court is of the opinion
that prayer of reinstatement cannot be considered since the
petitioner had attained the age of superannuation. Considering
the salary, which he was drawing and considering the fact that
his termination was held illegal by the Industrial Court, which
has not been challenged by the respondent-bank or not
disputed by appearing before this Court, in facts of this case it
would be appropriate to grant lumpsum compensation of
Rs.1,50,000/-. The Judgement and award dated 23.07.2009 is
thus modified to the aforesaid extent. The petition is
accordingly disposed of.
9. Respondent-bank is directed to pay lumpsum
compensation to the petitioner-workman within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9449/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2024
undefined
which, the workman shall be entitled for interest at the rate of
6% upon completion of 8 weeks. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
DIPTI PATEL...
