Gujarat High Court
Nahidhussain Nazimhussain Saiyed vs Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service ... on 26 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6545/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6545 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
NAHIDHUSSAIN NAZIMHUSSAIN SAIYED
Versus
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICE (AMTS)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ABID R PATHAN(11217) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 26/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.
Munshaw waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the
respondent No.1.
2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking enhancement of the lump
sum compensation awarded by the learned Labour Court,
Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.616 of 2011 vide
award dated 27.11.2024, whereby the learned Labour
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6545/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
Court awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards lump
sum compensation in full and final settlement of the
claim.
3. The gist of the case is that the petitioner was serving as a
driver and met with an accident on 19.10.2010, resulting
in the death of a cyclist. Consequently, the driving license
of the petitioner was suspended with immediate effect by
the Regional Transport Officer under the relevant
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Upon completion of
six months, and after reinstatement of the license by the
RTO, the petitioner was allowed to resume duties with
effect from 12.04.2011. Claiming salary for the
intervening period i.e., from 20.10.2010 to 12.04.2011,
the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was
registered as Reference (LCA) No.616 of 2011. The
learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad, vide award dated
27.11.2024, granted lump sum compensation of
Rs.30,000/-, which is under challenge in the present
petition.
4. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Pathan for the petitioner
and learned advocate Mr.Munshaw for the respondent.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Pathan submits that the
respondent-Corporation passed the order of termination
dated 20.10.2010 without conducting any departmental
inquiry, which is in gross violation of the principles of
natural justice. It is further submitted by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6545/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
advocate Mr.Pathan that neither any suspension order
was issued nor was the petitioner paid any subsistence
allowance during the relevant period. Hence, the action
of the respondent-Corporation is illegal. Learned
advocate Mr. Pathan further submits that since the
petitioner was not permitted to resume duty despite the
reinstatement of his driving license, he is entitled to
wages for the said period, and appropriate directions may
be issued for payment of the same.
5.1. Learned advocate Mr. Pathan further submits that
during the period when the petitioner's driving license
was suspended, he had made a specific request to the
respondent-Corporation to assign him alternative
work. However, the said request was not accepted.
Learned advocate Mr. Pathan further submits that the
petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs.16,000/- per
month, and for the period of six months, the total
salary would amount to more than Rs.1,00,000/-.
Despite this, the learned Labour Court has awarded
only a lumpsum compensation of Rs.30,000/-, which is
grossly inadequate and unjustified. Therefore, Learned
advocate Mr. Pathan submits that the impugned award
warrants interference and the present petition
deserves to be allowed by enhancing the
compensation.
6. As against the same, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw
appearing for the respondent-Corporation submits that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6545/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
the petitioner met with an accident on 19.10.2010,
resulting in the death of a cyclist, and accordingly, his
driving license was suspended by the Regional Transport
Officer until 20.04.2011. On completion of the suspension
period and restoration of his license, the petitioner was
permitted to rejoin duty. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw
submits that for the period during which the petitioner
did not render any service, the principle of 'no work, no
pay' would apply, and therefore, he is not entitled to any
salary for the said duration. Learned advocate Mr.
Munshaw further submits that the petitioner had
submitted an application dated 02.11.2010 seeking
alternative work, which was rejected by the competent
authority vide order dated 20.12.2010. However, the said
rejection order was never challenged by the petitioner in
any legal proceedings.
6.1. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that due to
the accident, the respondent was directed to pay the
compensation to the heirs of the deceased of
Rs.1,66,500/- and the petitioner was monetary
burdened however, then also on accepting the award
passed by the learned labour Court, the lumpsum
compensation was paid in the month of April 2025.
Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that the
petitioner was not entitled to any wages for the period
during which he did not work, as he was not in
possession of a valid driving licence. However, since
the Corporation did not challenge the award, it has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6545/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
been complied with in its entirety. In this background,
learned advocate Mr.Munshaw prays that no
interference is warranted with the impugned award
and that the present petition deserves to be
dismissed.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties and upon
perusal of the record, it emerges that the petitioner was
serving as a driver and was holding a valid heavy vehicle
driving licence. On 19.10.2010, the bus being driven by
the petitioner met with an accident, resulting in the
unfortunate death of a cyclist. Consequently, the
petitioner's driving licence was suspended with
immediate effect by the Regional Transport Officer for a
period of six months. On completion of the suspension
period, the licence was reinstated, and the petitioner was
permitted to resume his duties with effect from
20.04.2011.
8. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner did not render
any service during the period from 20.10.2010 to
20.04.2011, as he was not in possession of a valid driving
licence, which was a prerequisite for discharging his
duties as a driver. The learned Labour Court, however,
proceeded on the premise that there was a breach of
Sections 25F, 25G, and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, without assigning cogent reasons or properly
appreciating the real controversy between the parties. It
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6545/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
is not the case of the petitioner that his services were
terminated. Rather, his case rests on the ground that
though he was not permitted to work during the aforesaid
six-month period, no suspension order was issued, nor
was any subsistence allowance paid, thereby entitling
him to wages for that period.
9. This Court is of the view that the learned Labour Court
has decided the Reference by erroneously concluding
that there was a breach of Section 25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, despite having noted in the
impugned award that the petitioner was permitted to
resume duty from 20.04.2011 on restoration of his
driving licence by the RTO authority. As the respondent-
Corporation has accepted the award without challenging
it, and considering the overall facts and circumstances,
this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere with
the impugned award. Accordingly, the petition, being
devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed.
10. Resultantly this petition is dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
