Gujarat High Court
Hasmukhbhai vs Elecon on 26 July, 2010
Author: S.J.Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/964/2010 1/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 964 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1747 of 2000
======================================
HASMUKHBHAI
M PATEL - Appellant(s)
Versus
ELECON
ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance :
MR
TR MISHRA and MR UT MISHRA for the Appellant.
None for
Respondent(s) : 1,
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 26/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER) The petitioner-a workman made a grievance against the award dated 20th September, 1999 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCA) 504 of 1992 whereby the Labour Court found that the relief of reinstatement as prayed for by the workman did not deserve be granted. One of the main reasons, besides there being other reasons for such view and decision of the Court, was the statement made by the workman during his oral evidence admitting that he was not in a position to work and discharge his duties. The Labour Court, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, and the evidence on record, considered it appropriate to award Rs. 1,50,000/- as lumpsum compensation. Against the said award, the appellant workman preferred the writ petition. The learned Single Judge upon considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, being in agreement with the decision of the Labour Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 29th December, 2008, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 29th December, 2008, the workman has preferred the present Appeal.
2. We have heard Mr.Mishra, learned Advocate for the petitioner and perused the record. Mr. Mishra has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record.
3. The appellant workman who was working as a Turner was visited with charge-sheet levelling allegations about resorting to go slow tactics and instigating others to resort to go-slow and refusing to do the assigned work and that the go-slow had resulted in reduction in production by 30% to 50%. The workman opted not to remain present in the inquiry. Due to workman's absence, inquiry had to be conducted ex parte. The inquiry was completed and upon conclusion of the inquiry proceedings, Inquiry Officer submitted his report recording his findings. Based on the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the respondent company took the decision of terminating the services of the workman. Accordingly, the workman's services came to be terminated. The Labour Court found as a preliminary issue that the inquiry conducted against the appellant workman was legal and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge also has found the said decision free of error. However, as regards quantum of penalty, the Labour Court being of the view that the penalty imposed on the workman was not commensurate with the charges levelled against him, considered it proper to award the compensation. It is pertinent to note that the Labour Court in the award has recorded the admission of the appellant workman that he was not in a position to work anymore and he was just whiling away his time without doing any actual work. Having regard to the said fact, the Labour Court did not find it appropriate to grant the relief of reinstatement. The learned Single Judge, after having examined the record came to the conclusion that the Labour Court's decision with regard to the justness of the inquiry was proper. The learned Single Judge thus addressed the question whether the award granting lumpsum compensation was just and proper or not. The learned Single Judge has found it appropriate and accordingly dismissed the petition.
4. We have examined the record and having considered the submissions of the learned advocate of the petitioner, we do not see any reason to differ from the decision of the learned Single Judge. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the inquiry proceedings were just and legal. After examining the record, learned Single Judge also found that there was no infirmity in the inquiry. There is an admission recorded by the Court that the workman had declared that he was not in a position to discharge full time duty. In this backdrop, there being concurrent findings of fact of Labour Court and the learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to interfere. The Letters Patent Appeal fails and is rejected.
(S.J.Mukhopadhaya,C.J.) (K.M.Thaker,J) ***vcdarji Top