Gujarat High Court
Asst. Manager & vs Arvindkumar N. Barot & on 2 March, 2015
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
C/SCA/2152/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2152 of 2015
================================================================
ASST. MANAGER & 1....Petitioner(s)
Versus
ARVINDKUMAR N. BAROT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RITURAJ M MEENA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 02/03/2015
ORAL ORDER
At the outset learned advocate for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is ready to accept the alternative part of the award which directs to pay Rs. 5 lakhs compensation to the workman and pay the said amount to the workman in lieu of relief of reinstatement and back wages. Learned advocate for the workman, however, submitted that the workman wants to agitate and contest for reinstatement and is not willing to accept the lumpsum amount offered by the employer.
2. The workman was employed as an apprentice with the petitioner in July, 1987. After tenure of apprenticeship, he was engaged in electrical workshop as workman and worked as such till 1990. Thereafter, he was transferred to accounts department and worked as clerk continuously till 10.11.1998. His services came to be terminated with effect from 11 th Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/2152/2015 ORDER November, 1998. With a case that he served for long years and that his services was continuous, the workman invoked jurisdiction of Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT)- cum- Labour Court. The year of termination and the year in which the workman approached the Labour Court had an intervening period of eight years. The proceedings of reference culminated into peculiar award by which CGIT-cum-Labour Court directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and with 40% back wages. It also passed an alternative order of paying a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. The award of such nature only reflected a lack of clarity in approach and indecisiveness on part of the CGIT-cum-Labour Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay on behalf of the respondent- workman appearing on caveat.
4. With regard to the delay of 8 years in raising reference, learned advocate Mr. Prabhakar Upadyay for the workman submitted that in the meantime the workman had filed writ petition before this court which was disposed of in the year 2005 whereafter the Labour Court was approached. Therefore there was no delay on its part. As against this, it was pointed out by learned advocate for the petitioner that subject matter of the said petition was a claim of regularisation and it could not be said to be connected in any way with the industrial dispute so as to be an explanation much less a good explanation for delay.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/2152/2015 ORDER issues in the petition require consideration. Hence Rule returnable on 20th July, 2015.
6. By way of interim order, it is directed that the impugned judgment and award shall remain stayed during the pedency of the petition.
7. The aforesaid stay granted against reinstatement shall be subject to the compliance of section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the employer, on workman's filing necessary affidavit within a period of one week from today.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) cmjoshi Page 3 of 3