Gujarat High Court
Inarco Limited vs Industrial Tribunal on 13 March, 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7048/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7048 of 2014
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR BRINGING HEIRS) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7048 of 2014
==========================================================
INARCO LIMITED
Versus
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MUNJAAL M BHATT(8283) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR TR MISHRA(483) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 13/03/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Special Civil Application impugns the judgment and award dated 03.04.2014 passed in Reference (IT) No.15 of 2004 whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar has directed the petitioner herein to regularize the services of the two workmen and to pay them the regular pay-scale as well as consequential benefits from the date of their appointment.
2. The factual matrix in the present case is as follows :-
2.1 The workmen viz. Dineshbhai Babubhai Acharya and Bharatbhai Ravishankar Jani were engaged on retainership basis as per the agreement entered into between the petitioner company and the said workmen. As per the retainership conditions, it was open for the said workmen to complete the work as per their own convenience and they were free to take any assignment outside the petitioner's establishment. The said retainership agreement came to Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:38:07 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7048/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023 undefined be renewed from time-to-time .
2.2 The workmen raised an industrial dispute through respondent No.2 i. e. Saurashtra Shramik Sangh before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bhavnagar. Upon failure of the conciliation proceedings, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, vide letter dated 10.03.2004, made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar as to why the said workmen should not be absorbed on permanent basis in the petitioner company and whether they are entitled for regular pay and consequential benefits.
2.3 Notice came to be issued to the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein appeared before the Industrial Tribunal and opposed the claim of the respondent workmen. Both the parties led the evidence in support of their contentions.
2.4 After considering the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment and award, the learned Industrial Tribunal was pleased to allow the reference and directed that the workmen viz. Dineshbhai Babubhai Acharya and Bharatbhai Ravishankar Jani be absorbed as permanent employees from their respective dates of joining the petitioner company and they should be paid the regular pay as well as consequential benefits.
2.5 Aggrieved, the petitioner company has preferred the present Special Civil Application.
3. Learned senior counsel Mr. M. R. Bhatt assisted by learned advocate Mr. Mayur Kishanchandani for the petitioner submits that the said two workmen could not be treated as "workmen" as per the provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He submits Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:38:07 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7048/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023 undefined that the workmen were engaged on retainership work and were never regular employees of the petitioner. He further submits that the workmen were being paid the compensation based on their work and there was no fixed time for the said workmen for attending the work. He submits that the petitioner company had produced the documentary evidence to substantiate the concluded contract of retainership executed between the petitioner and the workmen. He submits that the petitioner had also produced the evidence with respect to retainership charges and vouchers to that effect. He submits that the evidence produced by the petitioner company could lead the inference that the workmen were engaged on retainership work and could not be treated as permanent employees of the petitioner company. He submits that the learned Industrial Tribunal has misread and misinterpreted the contract of retainership executed between the parties.
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. T. R. Mishra for respondent No.2 submits that the learned Industrial Tribunal has rightly interpreted the evidence brought on record. He submits that the agreement of retainership was just to deny the permanency benefit to the workmen. He submits that the workmen have worked regularly with the petitioner company as a regular employee only and therefore, the finding of the learned Industrial Tribunal that the workmen were "workmen" as per the provisions of Section 2(s) of the Act, is just and appropriate looking to the evidence brought on record. He submits that cogent reasons have been given based on the averments as well as oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the parties. He submits that the finding of the learned Industrial Tribunal does not warrant any interference and the same be upheld.Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:38:07 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7048/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023 undefined
5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record.
6. This Court, on 08.05.2014 while issuing notice, stayed the impugned judgment and award dated 03.04.2014 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar. The interim relief was confirmed till final disposal of the petition. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. T. R. Mishra that the workman viz. Dineshbhai Babubhai Acharya has reached the age of superannuation on 30.04.2017 and another workman viz. Bharatbhai Ravishankar Jani has since expired on 17.03.2020.
7. After perusing the evidence on record and taking into consideration the contentions raised in the present proceedings, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and award as the same is based on cogent reasons and evidence brought on record.
8. However, in view of aforesaid factual scenario and the present circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the award is modified and a lumpsum compensation is awarded to the workmen. In the present case, the workmen were granted the permanency benefit from the date of their appointment. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice, it is directed that the workmen viz. Dineshbhai Babubhai Acharya and Bharatbhai Ravishankar Jani be paid a lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- each in lieu of permanency benefit as awarded by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar.
Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:38:07 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7048/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023 undefined
9. Accordingly, the petitioner company is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in the Registry of this Court within a period of six weeks from today. After the said amount is deposited in the Registry of this Court, respondent No.2 i. e. Saurashtra Shramik Sangh through its President/Secretary is directed to make an application for withdrawal of the said amount within a period of two weeks thereafter. The Registry shall release the said amount so deposited in favour of respondent No.2 i. e. Saurashtra Shramik Sangh by way of account payee cheque/NEFT after due verification and following due procedure. Respondent No.2 shall thereafter disburse the said amount to the workmen/their family within one week upon receipt of the said amount from the Registry of this Court. The proof of payment to the workmen/their family shall be placed on record thereafter.
10. In view of aforesaid observations, the impugned judgment and award is modified to the aforesaid extent. The Special Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
11. In view of disposal of the main Special Civil Application, the Civil Application for bringing the heirs on record does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.
Direct service is permitted.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) cmk Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 22:38:07 IST 2023