Gujarat High Court
Ayubkhan Akbarkhan Pathan vs General Manager on 12 October, 2023
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2924/2019 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2924 of 2019
==========================================================
AYUBKHAN AKBARKHAN PATHAN
Versus
GENERAL MANAGER & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR VISRUT JANI FOR RC JANI & ASSOCIATE(6436) for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 12/10/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Yogen N. Pandya for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Visrut Jani for RC Jani & Associate for the respondent.
2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Award passed by the Presiding Officer CGIT-cum-Labour Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 16 20:36:56 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2924/2019 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2023 undefined Court, Ahmedabad whereby CGIT has awarded Rs. 1 lakh towards lump-sum compensation in lieu of the reinstatement with back wages on the ground that the petitioner had already attained the age of 55 years and need of respondent - BSNL has entirely changed because earlier workmen were engaged on the basis of old technology at the time of passing of the Award in the year 2019.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Casual labour from April 1980 to June 1988 by the respondent and put in more than 2572 days in toto during that period. However, in June 1988 without following any procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (For short "the ID Act"), services of the petitioner Page 2 of 8 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 16 20:36:56 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2924/2019 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2023 undefined came to be discontinued by oral order. The petitioner therefore, raised the dispute by issuing legal notice dated 05.10.1995 and Reference was referred for adjudication in 1997.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of terminating the service of the petitioner, neither notice, nor notice pay, nor retrenchment compensation, nor legally dues were paid by the respondents to the petitioner and, therefore petitioner made an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer which after having failed, was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication being Reference (ITC) No.31 of 1997 which was renumbered as Reference (CGITA) No. 1058 of 2004.
Page 3 of 8 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 16 20:36:56 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2924/2019 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2023 undefined
5. The petitioner workman filed his Statement of Claim at Exh.5 claiming reinstatement with full back wages, against which, the respondent No.1 employer has filed its written statement at Exh. 6.
6. Thereafter, both the parties has filed documents and lead oral evidences before the CGIT Cum Labour Court which partly allowed the Reference and granted lump-sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.
7. Being aggrieved by the impugned Award passed by the CGIT Cum Labour Court, rejecting the prayer for reinstatement and ordering to pay the lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to the petitioner, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
Page 4 of 8 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 16 20:36:56 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2924/2019 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2023 undefined
8. Learned advocate Mr. Yogen Pandya submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court for enhancement of the compensation and according to him reasonable amount of compensation would be Rs. 2,50,000/- considering the service period of 2572 days rendered by the petitioner from April 1980 to June 1988.
9. It was further submitted that CGIT has held that there is violation of sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (For short "the ID Act") and only considering the age of the petitioner and the fact that the technology for which the petitioner was trained has already changed after more Page 5 of 8 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 16 20:36:56 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2924/2019 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2023 undefined than 20 years, lump-sum compensation was awarded. It was further submitted that the petitioner was earning daily wage of around Rs.60/- per day at the relevant point of time in the year 1980 and considering the same, at-least reasonable compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- ought to have been awarded to the petitioner.
10. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Visrut Jani for the respondent submitted that the impugned order is just and proper and no interference is required to be made while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as learned CGIT has exercised discretion in awarding lump-sum compensation of Rs. 1 lakh considering the service of the petitioner in the year Page 6 of 8 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 16 20:36:56 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2924/2019 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2023 undefined 1980-1988.
11. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the fact that the petitioner has rendered service for almost eight years i.e. 2572 days as found by learned CGIT and the fact that the petitioner was earning Rs.60/- per day at the relevant point of time, which means that the petitioner was earning at-least Rs. 1800/- per month and about Rs. 30,000/- per year and considering the eight years of service, it would be just and proper to award lump-sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
12. Therefore, the impugned Judgment and Award is modified and amount of compensation is enhanced to Page 7 of 8 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 16 20:36:56 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2924/2019 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2023 undefined Rs. 2,00,000/-. Respondent is therefore, directed to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) RAGHUNATH R NAIR Page 8 of 8 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 16 20:36:56 IST 2023