Gujarat High Court
Vashrambhai Dhanabhai Vegad vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 9 March, 2015
Author: Ks Jhaveri
Bench: Ks Jhaveri, A.G.Uraizee
C/LPA/445/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 445 of 2015
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8964 of 2010
================================================================
VASHRAMBHAI DHANABHAI VEGAD....Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SANDIP M PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 09/03/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
1. The appellant is the original respondent in Special Civil Application No. 8964 of 2010 preferred by the present respondents - original petitioners wherein the award dated 10.12.2009 passed in Reference (LCB) No. 84 of 2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhavnagar was challenged.
2. The learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition, by way of order dated 06.09.2010 directed the respondents - original petitioners to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50000/- to the present appellant in lieu of Page 1 of 4 C/LPA/445/2015 ORDER reinstatement and 20% back wages with continuity in service. Being aggrieved the said order, the present appeal is preferred.
3. The appellant thereafter preferred appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 714 of 2011 before this Court which came to be withdrawn with a liberty to file review petition before the learned Single Judge and accordingly review application being MCA No. 522 of 2014 was filed. The same came to be rejected by the learned Single Judge and the said order has also been assailed in the present appeal.
4. Mr. Sandip Patel, learned advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant had served with the opponent from 1983 to 2003 and put in almost 20 years of service and therefore the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the length of service before deciding the compensation. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge passed the impugned judgement in the writ petition after considering the consent of the advocate for the appellant but in fact the appellant had never given consent to the advocate for lumpsum payment in lieu of reinstatement.
5. The learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgement and order observed as under:
"2. After the matter was argued by learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the fact that the concerned respondent workman was serving as Daily Wager and considering the fact that the dispute was raised after a period of four years and considering the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Page 2 of 4 C/LPA/445/2015 ORDER rendered in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal, Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and others, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 773, there is a broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties that the impugned judgement and award dated 10/12/2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar be modified to the extent that in lieu of reinstatement and backwages, the respondent can be paid lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,000/- and they do not invite any further reasoned order.
3. In view of the above broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and even otherwise considering the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated hereinabove that the respondent was working as daily wager only and he raised industrial dispute after a period of four years and considering the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Seal and others (supra), the impugned judgement and award dated 10/12/2009 passed by Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No. 84 of 2007 is hereby modified to the extent that in lieu of reinstatement and 20% backwages with continuity in-service, the respondent shall be paid lumpsum compensation, which is quantified at Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the concerned respondent workman by Account Payee Cheque within a period of three months from today. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs. "
6. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the fact that the respondent was a daily wager and had raised industrial dispute after a period of four years. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal, Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and others, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 773, Page 3 of 4 C/LPA/445/2015 ORDER the learned Single Judge granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement, backwages and continuity of service. We do not find any reason for interference in the matter. The appeal is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (A.G.URAIZEE,J) divya Page 4 of 4