Gujarat High Court
Harshidaben Purshotam Joshi vs Rajkot Municipal Corporation on 3 September, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7825/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7825 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR FIXING DATE OF HEARING) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7825 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
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 ?
================================================================
HARSHIDABEN PURSHOTAM JOSHI
Versus
RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KV GADHIA(319) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PARITOSH CALLA(2972) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR SHIVAM DIXIT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 03/09/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of present petition under Article 226 & 227 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7825/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2024
undefined
Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs :
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or
an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
by quashing and setting aside the impugned common award, qua
the petitioner, dated 14.07.2014 passed by the learned Labour
Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) Nos.13 and 14 of 2009, as it being
ex-facie illegal, improper, unjust, unfair and without following the
principles of natural justice, in the interest of justice.
(B) During pendency of admission, hearing and final disposal of this
petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the
implementation, operation and execution of the impugned common
award, qua the petitioner, dated 14.07.2014 passed by the learned
Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) Nos.13 and 14 of 2009, as
it being ex-facie illegal, improper, unjust, unfair and without
following the principles of natural justice, in the interest of justice.
(C) Any other and further relief as may be deemed fit just and
proper may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner, in the
interest of justice."
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as
under :
2.1 That, the petitioner was appointed as Mukhya Sevika on
09/04/2002 with the Anganvadi, run by Family Planning
Association of India, Rajkot, through respondent No.2 herein
and was getting salary of Rs.2,500/- per month. The purpose to
run this Anganvadi was to give proper information to the
beneficiaries of this Anganvadi Scheme. That, from
03/03/2005, the respondent No.1 - Rajkot Municipal
Corporation had taken over the administration of the said
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7825/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2024
undefined
Anganvadi and therefore, the tenure of service was extended
from time to time by the respondent Corporation regularly,
keeping in view the exigency of work, and the tenure of service
of the present petitioner was orally extended by the
respondent Corporation many times. That, the work which was
taken by the respondent Corporation with the petitioner was a
permanent in nature and is continue till date. Though the work,
which the petitioner was doing, was permanent in nature, the
service of the petitioner was orally terminated by the
respondent Corporation suddenly on 01/08/2005 and at the
time of terminating the service of the petitioner, neither notice,
nor notice pay, nor retrenchment compensation, nor salary for
the months of June & July, 2005, nor legal dues were paid by
the respondent Authorities to the present petitioner.
2.2 That, the work which the petitioner was doing was
permanent in nature and even today, the said work is
continue, and after terminating the service of the petitioner,
the respondent Authorities have engaged another person in
place of the petitioner for doing the same work, which was
done by the petitioner. When the respondent Authorities have
appointed another person in place of the petitioner, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7825/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2024
undefined
respondent Authorities have not called the petitioner at that
time for the work. That, the petitioner had time and again
approached the respondent Authorities for taking back the
petitioner in service, even though they have not responded to
it and not taken the petitioner back in service. Thereafter, the
petitioner wrote a registered A.D. letter on 13/01/2009 and
requested the respondent Authorities to take back her in
service, even though the respondent Authorities have not
turned up and even replied to it. That, the petitioner had
approached many places for the job, but it was in vain.
Therefore, the petitioner is unemployed from the date of
termination. That, after orally terminating the service of the
petitioner, the petitioner has raised an industrial dispute before
the Appropriate Authority, where there was no possibility of
settlement and therefore, the Appropriate Authority has sent
the said industrial dispute by way of Reference to the Labour
Court, Rajkot for adjudication, wherein the petitioner had filed
statement of claim vide Exh.3 and the respondent Authorities
have filed their written statement vide Exh.8 denying the
allegations made in the statement of claim. That, the
examination in chief was made on affidavit at Exh.10, which
was cross-examined by the representative of the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7825/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2024
undefined
Authorities. Thereafter, vide Exh.23, an application was made
to join the respondent No.2 as necessary and concerned party
respondent to the Reference, which was allowed on
14.03.2013 and thereby the respondent No.2 was joined as
party respondent No.2 in the said Reference. Thereafter, the
Labour Court has decided the Reference vide award dated
14/07/2014 and rejected the reinstatement, however the
learned Labour Court has granted lump-sum compensation of
Rs.7,500/- to be paid to the petitioner.
2.3 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said
impugned award passed by the Labour Court rejecting the
reinstatement and ordering to pay the lumpsum compensation
of Rs.7,500/- to be paid to the petitioner, the petitioner has
preferred this petition under Article 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India read with the provisions of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, with the aforesaid prayers.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Yogen Pandya, appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.K.V. Gadhia,
appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 - Rajkot Municipal
Corporation and learned Assistant Government Pleader
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7825/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2024
undefined
Mr.Shivam Dixit, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 -
State of Gujarat.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Pandya has submitted that the
Labour Court had decided two references being Reference
Nos.13 & 14 of 2009, wherein, one of the workman being
Gitaben J. Tank preferred Special Civil Application No.18278 of
2014, which was decided by this Court vide order dated
18/02/2015, against which Letters Patent Appeal No.1201 of
2015 came to be preferred before this Court, wherein, the
Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13/11/2019
enhanced the amount of compensation granted by the Labour
Court from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the
concerned worker, and therefore, under such circumstances,
learned advocate Mr.Pandya has urged that in the similar set
of facts in case of co-worker, the Division Bench has enhanced
the amount of compensation. Learned advocate Mr.Pandya has
therefore, urged that the amount of compensation granted by
the Labour Court in favour of the present petitioner be also
enhanced or appropriately modified, as the petitioner has
worked with the respondent Corporation for a period of 3 years
and looking to the length of service of the petitioner, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7825/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2024
undefined
amount of compensation granted by the Labour Court is a very
meager amount.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.K.V. Gadhia, appearing
on behalf of the respondent Corporation has submitted that,
the petitioner has failed to establish before the Labour Court
that she had worked for 240 days in each calendar year,
however, in fact, she had worked only for a period of 4 months
and therefore, the amount awarded by the Labour Court is just
and proper and no interference is required to be called for in
the present petition and the present petition be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I
have also gone through the order dated 13/11/2019 passed in
the Letters Patent Appeal No.1201 of 2015 Considering the
facts and considering the order of the Division Bench, I am of
the opinion that the impugned award passed by the Labour
Court is required to be modified and the amount of
compensation of Rs.7,500/- awarded in favour of the present
petition is required to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7825/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2024
undefined
7. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed. The
impugned award dated 14/07/2014 passed by the Labour
Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No.13 of 2009 qua the
present petitioner is modified to the extent that, the
respondent No.1 - Rajkopt Municipal Corporation is hereby
directed to pay lumpsum compensation to the tune of
Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner workman towards full and final
settlement. The same is to be paid directly to the petitioner
workman after verifying the Bank details and after following
due procedure of law through RTGS/NEFT or any other
appropriate mode, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of
receipt of order of this Court. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent.
7.1 In view of the disposal of the main petition, the pending
civil application/s also stands disposed of.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
