Gujarat High Court
Mahemood Abdul Aziz vs Manager on 24 November, 2014
Author: C.L.Soni
Bench: C.L. Soni
C/SCA/571/2005 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 571 of 2005
===========================================================
MAHEMOOD ABDUL AZIZ....Petitioner(s)
Versus
MANAGER, MIHIR TEXTILES MILLS,PRESENT ADD.MAFATLAL
GAGALBHAI & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR NS SHETH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIRAV V JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI
Date : 24/11/2014
ORAL ORDER
1. The challenge made in this petition is against the order dated 3.3.2004 passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad in appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order made by the Labour Court dated 18.8.2001.
2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was employed as Badli worker in the year 1976. He worked as Badli worker for different days during 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979. His services were terminated on account of his remaining absent. Such action was challenged by the petitioner before the Labour Court.
3. It appears that the Labour Court then considered the matter and found that the petitioner was relieved from service for no reason. However, the Labour Court observed that since the Mill Company Page 1 of 5 C/SCA/571/2005 ORDER against which the dispute was raised was closed in the year 1992, it would not be proper to order reinstatement. The Labour Court therefore made an order of compensation of Rs.25,000.00 with costs of Rs.2,000.00. This order was challenged before the Industrial Court in appeal being Appeal (I.C.) No.101 of 2001 and the Industrial Court confirmed the said order. It is against these orders the present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Sheth for the petitioner submitted that since the action of the Mill Company of terminating the services of the petitioner was found as illegal, the petitioner was required to be reinstated in services in the successor mill company - respondent no.2 which is joined in the present petition as per order dated 9.1.2014. Mr. Sheth submitted that the Industrial Court has though observed in the order that since the mill company was closed, notice of appeal could not be served, still the appeal was decided by the Industrial Court and, therefore, the matter needs to be remanded to the Industrial Court to decide the appeal afresh by joining the successor mill company. Mr.Sheth submitted that in any case, the compensation of Rs.25,000.00 awarded by the Labour Court and confirmed by the Industrial Court was on lower side and this Court may consider enhancing the compensation.
5. Learned Advocate Mr. Nirav Joshi appearing for respondent No.2 Mill Company submitted that under the agreement, respondent Page 2 of 5 C/SCA/571/2005 ORDER No.2 has acquired the assets and liabilities of the Mihir Textile Mills which was approved by the Industrial Court and had no liability towards the Badli workers and, therefore, it cannot be fastened with any liability of the petitioner. Mr.Joshi submitted that in any case, when the order of termination was passed many years back, and since the petitioner was Badli worker has no right to be reinstated in respondent No.2 Company. He, therefore, urged to dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, it appears that there is no dispute on the fact that the petitioner was employed as Badli worker and worked for 47 days in 1976, 77 days in 1977, 33 days in 1978 and till the period his services were terminated in the year 1979. It appears that though the action of terminating services of the petitioner was not found proper, however, the Labour Court in its discretion thought it fit not to grant reinstatement by taking into consideration subsequent event of closure of the mill company in the year 1992. It further apears that two years after the closure of the respondent No.1 Mill Company, agreement was entered into with respondent No.2 for transfer of assets and workers liabilities and settlement was recorded with Textile Labour Association dated 12.12.1994, copy whereof is placed at p. no. 65. The Industrial Court then passed award on the basis of settlement. As per the terms of the settlement, the Badli workers transferred from respondent No.1 were to be given work as provided in clause 15(a), however, the Badli Page 3 of 5 C/SCA/571/2005 ORDER workers who were relieved were to get gratuity at the rate of Rs.1900.00 per year of service put in by him.
7. The petitioner was relieved in the year 1979. The Labour Court did not deem it proper to order the reinstatement, therefore, compensation of Rs.25,000.00 was ordered. Learned Advocate Mr. Sheth submitted that such compensation was on lower side. However, it is required to be noted that when the reinstatement was not possible, the Labour Court having considered length of service put in by the petitioner, thought it fit to award compensation of Rs.25,000.00.
8. As stated above, during four years, the petitioner worked for 47 days, 77 days, 33 days and in the year 1979, for the days till his services were terminated. For such number of days, the petitioner worked as Badli Worker. In such fact situation, this Court finds that non granting of reinstatement on account of closure of the mill company in the year 1992 and granting of compensation of Rs.25000.00 could not be said to be unreasonable or inappropriate in the facts of the case.
9. The Labour Court and the Industrial Court having exercised the discretion in the facts of the case, this Court finds that no interference is called for in the impugned orders in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Page 4 of 5 C/SCA/571/2005 ORDER
10. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(C.L.SONI, J.) anvyas Page 5 of 5