Gujarat High Court
Punamchand Tribhovandas Panchal ... vs Malti-Chem Research on 29 April, 2013
Author: Anant S.Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
PUNAMCHAND TRIBHOVANDAS PANCHAL [SINCE DECD.THRO.HEIRS....Petitioner(s)V/SMALTI-CHEM RESEARCH CENTRE....Respondent(s) C/SCA/4711/2006 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4711 of 2006 =============================================== PUNAMCHAND TRIBHOVANDAS PANCHAL [SINCE DECD.THRO.HEIRS....Petitioner(s) Versus MALTI-CHEM RESEARCH CENTRE....Respondent(s) =============================================== Appearance: NOTICE SERVED for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 DECESED LITIGANT, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR VAIBHAV A VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR DIPAK R DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR CS NAIDU, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 =============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 29/04/2013 ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
2. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner with following prayers:
7 (A) quash and set aside the impugned award dated 22.11.2005 passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara in reference L.C.V. No.261 of 1992 Annexure-A to this petition;
(B) further be pleased to grant appropriate consequential benefits to the petitioner which the Hon ble Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;
(C) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Hon ble Court may be pleased to stay the impugned award of the Labour Court and further be pleased to direct the respondent to make on account payment of compensation of the amount which the Hon ble Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;
award the cost of the petition and (E) grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Hon ble Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. At the outset, Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the respondent would contend that award impugned in this petition passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court vide order dated 22.11.2005 in reference LCV No. 261 of 1992, need no interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In absence of any error of jurisdiction much less of law deserves to be rejected.
4. Mr. Kamal Sojitra, learned advocate for Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, for the petitioner-workman would contend that grounds stated in this petition including the ailment of paralysis attack, for which, the petitioner was admitted in the hospital from 21.12.1990 to somewhere in the first week of February, 1991 and therefore he was covered under definition of continuous service as provided under Section 25 (B) (1) of Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the Labour Court erred in passing the award and refused to reinstate and back wages as prayed for to the petitioner-workman.
5. It is also to be noted that the petitioner workman died on 17.11.2009 and Manjulaben, widow of the petitioner was joined as legal heir of the original petitioner and is pursuing this proceeding and has agreed that in case of decision to be rendered by this Court interest of justice may be made.
6. After arguing the case for some time and upon noticing peculiar facts and circumstances of the case about unfortunate ailment of the petitioner-workman and short tenure of service, considering overall facts and circumstances, I am inclined to direct the respondent to pay Rs.50,000/- towards full and final payment as a gesture goodwill to their ex-employee within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order/writ.
7. The petition is disposed of in view of the above directions. Rule is discharged.
(ANANT S.DAVE, J.) SMITA Page 3 of 3