Gujarat High Court
Rohit Rajendrabhai Punjabhai vs Vadodara Municipal Corporation on 20 August, 2024
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1258/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1258 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14483 of 2023
==========================================================
ROHIT RAJENDRABHAI PUNJABHAI
Versus
VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. JIT P PATEL(6994) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NILESH A PANDYA(549) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date: 20/08/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT)
1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 01.07.2024 in Special Civil Application No.14483 of 2023, wherein the learned Single Judge while allowing the petition has directed the respondent - Municipal Corporation to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- as full and final settlement in lieu of reinstatement.
2. The facts emanate from record are that the appellant (original petitioner) was appointed on 19.06.2007 as Field Worker in Malarai-Filaria Department of respondent No.2. The Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Aug 22 2024 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 22 21:14:02 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1258/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2024 undefined said appointment was on contractual basis under the Labour Contractor of Sanitary Department initially for a period of six months. It was case of the appellant that his service was governed by notification dated 14.06.2007 of respondent No.2.
3. The services of the appellant were thereafter extended from time to time till 17.05.2009. Then, by an oral order dated 18.05.2009, the services of the appellant were terminated, aggrieved by which, the appellant along with all similarly situated employees through Union had filed Special Civil Application No.8960 of 2009, which came to be disposed of by an order dated 15.03.2010, on the ground of alternative, efficacious and statutory remedy available to the petitioners therein. Accordingly, the appellant raised dispute before Labour Court Vadodara, registered as Reference No.569 of 2010. It was case of the appellant that retrenchment of the appellant was in violation of Sections 25F and 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court, Vadodara upon adjudication, vide award dated 23.03.2023 rejected the Reference. The Labour Court held that in the statement of claim, the date of appointment has been referred as 23.01.2008 and termination was referred as 18.05.2009. Despite that, no evidence has been led in support of their service as also their completion of 240 days in a year. On this premise, the Labour Court rejected the Reference. Aggrieved by the award dated Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Aug 22 2024 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 22 21:14:02 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1258/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2024 undefined 23.03.2023 in Reference (LCB) No.569 of 2010, the appellant preferred captioned writ petition wherein the learned Single Judge held that from the information received under The Right to Information Act, it is evident the appellant had worked 410 days with the respondent and he had completed 240 days in a calendar year. Thus, there was breach of Section 25F of the Act and considering breach of Section 25F, the learned Single Judge awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- as full and final settlement in lieu of reinstatement. The learned Single Judge took support of decision in Letters Patent Appeal No.908 of 2023, wherein by taking into consideration the length of service rendered by the workman, the amount of lumpsum compensation has been determined. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2024 in Special Civil Application No.14482 of 2023, present Letters Patent Appeal is filed.
4. Heard Mr. Jit Patel, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr.Nilesh Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent.
5. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in not appreciating that since the appellant had completed 240 days in a year, he would be entitled for regularization. No evidence was led by the respondent - Corporation in relation to completion of 240 days despite having the record in their possession and once Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Aug 22 2024 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 22 21:14:02 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1258/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2024 undefined there was breach of Section 25F of the Act, the appellant would be entitled for reinstatement with appropriate back wages which the learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating, therefore, the order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that before the Labour Court as also before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 14483 of 2023, the ground raise was of breach of Section 25F of the Act and in view of breach of Section 25F of the Act, the compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge being appropriate, no interference is called for.
7. Having considered the submissions and evidence on record, it is noticed that the learned Single Judge based on the evidence on record held that the petitioner came to be terminated in the year 2009 and as per the information received under Right of Information Act, the appellant had worked for more than 240 days in a year. The said information was available in the proceedings pending before the Labour Court.
Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Aug 22 2024 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 22 21:14:02 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1258/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2024 undefined
8. Admittedly, the appellant was appointed as a daily wager and before termination, no procedure for retrenchment was followed as per Section 25F of the Act. Since there was breach of Section 25F of the Act, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed and set aside the award of the Labour Court dated 23.03.2023 in Reference (LCB) No.569 of 2010. The appellant has however, failed in establishing breach of Sections 25 G and 25 H of the Act. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly awarded the lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- as full and final settlement in lieu of reinstatement. Moreover, we have noticed that before the learned Single Judge ground raised was only in relation to breach of Section 25F and no contentions were raised in relation to breach of section 25 G and 25 H and, therefore, there being no error in the order of learned Single Judge, no interference is called for.
9. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) (MAUNA M. BHATT,J) NAIR SMITA V./17 Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Aug 22 2024 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 22 21:14:02 IST 2024