Gujarat High Court
Yunusbhai Abharambhai @ Ibrahimbhai ... vs Superintendent Engineer on 21 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3027/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3027 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
YUNUSBHAI ABHARAMBHAI @ IBRAHIMBHAI KURESHI
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER
==========================================================
Appearance:
AAKASH D MODI(7449) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SURBHI BHATI, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 21/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by
the learned labour Court, Rajkot at Morbi below Exhibit
45 in Reference (LCR) No.56 of 2009 is challenged
whereby the amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards
the lumpsum compensation. At the outset, it is required
to be observed that the respondent employer has
accepted this award as the same was not challenged
before this Court. In that background, the only issue
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3027/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
before this Court is whether the amount awarded as lump
sum compensation requires enhancement or not.
2. It is an undisputed fact that the Reference came to be
filed before the learned labour Court by the workman,
claiming that the petitioner-workman was serving as a
watchman at Dam-2 Canal Store from 03.02.1983 and
was drawing a monthly wages of Rs.627/-. It is claimed
before the learned Reference court that after serving
continuously from 1983 to 1986, his services were
terminated on 21.09.1986.
3. Challenging the above award, the Reference came to be
filed after the period of 23 years before the learned
Reference Court in the year 2009. Considering the period
of delay as well as considering the evidence adduced
before the learned Reference court, the learned
Reference court arrived to the conclusion that if the
amount of Rs.50,000/- would be awarded as lumpsum
compensation then it would be just and proper.
4. This Court has referred the decision of the Apex Court
relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner
rendered in the case of State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
vs.Raj Kumar, reported in (2019) 14 SCC 353 wherein
the dispute, which was raised after 25 years of alleged
termination, and the compensation awarded by the
learned Reference Court of Rs.30,000/- was under
challenged. The Apex Court has enhanced the amount of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3027/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
compensation from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- by
observing as under:
"11. It is apposite to reproduce what this Court has held
in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra):
"33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid
judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of
reinstatement with full back wages, when the
termination is found to be illegal is not applied
mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position
where services of a regular/permanent workman are
terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of
victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc. However,
when it comes to the case of termination of a daily-
wage worker and where the termination is found illegal
because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is
consistent in taking the view that in such cases
reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and
instead the workman should be given monetary
compensation which will meet the ends of justice.
Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.
34. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement
in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the
termination is found to be illegal because of non-
payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay
as mandatorily required under Section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is
always open to the management to terminate the
services of that employee by paying him the
retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was
working on dailywage basis and even after he is
reinstated, he has no right to seek regularisation [see
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)17]. Thus when he
cannot claim regularisation and he has no right to
continue even as a dailywage worker, no useful purpose
is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and
he can be given monetary compensation by the Court
itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3027/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation
only in the form of retrenchment compensation and
notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of
reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not
serve any purpose.
12. Here is also a case where the respondent claimed to
have worked as daily wager hardly for a period of one
year or so in PWD of the State; Secondly, he had no right
to claim regularization; Thirdly, he had no right to
continue as daily wager and lastly, the dispute was raised
by the respondent (workman) almost after 25 years of the
alleged termination before the Labour Court.
13. It is for these reasons, we are of the view that the
case of the respondent would squarely fall in the category
of cases discussed by this Court in Para 34 of the
judgment rendered in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (supra).
14. In view of the forgoing discussion, we are of the
considered view that it would be just, proper and
reasonable to award lump sum monetary compensation to
the respondent in full and final satisfaction of his claim of
reinstatement and other consequential benefits by taking
recourse to the powers under Section 11A of the Act and
the law laid down by this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited's case (supra).
15. Having regard to the totality of the facts taken note of
supra, we consider it just and reasonable to award a sum
of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs.One lakh) to the respondent in lieu of
his right to claim re instatement and back wages in full
and final satisfaction of this dispute in place of Rs.30,000/
awarded by the Labour Court. Only to this extent we
modify the award of the Labour Court in quantum of
award of compensation by enhancing it from Rs.30,000/ to
Rs.1,00,000 (one lakh)."
5. In view of the above decision, this Court is of the view
that since the petitioner was receiving a wages of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3027/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
Rs.627/- at the time of termination, and had served for a
period of 03 years, and filed the Reference after a delay
of 23 years, if similar compensation is awarded then ends
of justice would meet.
6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The respondent
herein is directed to pay a lumpsum compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner within a period of 12
weeks from today.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
