Gujarat High Court
Ashwin Jayantilal Laheru vs Dy.Executive Engineer Public Health on 2 December, 2014
Author: M.R.Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
C/SCA/5493/2006 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5493 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
ASHWIN JAYANTILAL LAHERU....Petitioner(s)
Versus
DY.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH
CONSTRUCTION....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR YH VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR BHARAT T RAO, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date : 02/12/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
1.00. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/5493/2006 JUDGMENT Constitution of India, the petitioner workman has prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction to quash and set aside the impugned Judgement and Award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amreli in Reference (LCA) No.523 of 1998, by which he learned trial court has partly allowed the said reference and has awarded a total sum of Rs.10,000/- towards lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back-wages.
2.00. That the petitioner served as a daily-wager for the period from 25/7/1997 to 20/8/1998 and his services came to be terminated and therefore an industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner which was referred to the Labour Court, Amreli, which was numbered as Reference (LCA) No.523 of 1998. That by the impugned Judgement and Award, the learned Labour Court has held that the termination is in breach of section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, however considering the fact that the petitioner workman worked as daily-wager for the period from 25/7/1997 to 20/8/1998, for a period of about one year, instead of reinstatement the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner to pay limp-sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.
2.01. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgement and Award in awarding lump-sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back- wages, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3.00. Mr.Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/5493/2006 JUDGMENT the petitioner has fairly conceded that this Court had issued notice only for the purpose of enhancement of the amount of lump-sum compensation. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Labour Court has materially erred in awarding total lump-sum compensation of Rs.10,000 in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. Therefore, it is requested to pass appropriate order and has requested to enhance the amount of lump-sum compensation.
No other submissions have been made.
4.00. Mr.Dakshesh Patel, learned advocate appearing for Mr.B.T. Rao, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when the petitioner has worked worked as a daily wager for short duration for the period from 25/7/1997 to 20/8/1998 and that too not on the sanctioned post, no error has been committed by the learned Labour Court in awarding lump-sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back-wages. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present petition.
5.00. Heard Mr.Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Dakshesh Patel, learned advocate appearing for Mr.B.T. Rao, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, it is not dispute that the petitioner has worked as a daily wager for trivial period from 25/7/1997 to 20/8/1998 and as and when work was available, the work was offered. It is true that his termination was held to be illegal i.e. in breach of section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, considering the fact that the petitioner worked as a daily wager for the period 25/7/1997 to Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/5493/2006 JUDGMENT 20/8/1998 only i.e. for a period of approximately about one year and as and when the work was available, he was offered the work, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation Versus Gitam Singh, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 136, it cannot be said that the Labour Court has committed any error in awarding Rs.10,000/- in all towards lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. The impugned judgement and award passed by the learned Labour Court does not call for any interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6.00. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.
(M.R.SHAH, J.) Rafik Page 4 of 4