Mahila Samakhya Society vs Pravinbhai Ramjibhai Makwana on 1 April, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Mahila Samakhya Society vs Pravinbhai Ramjibhai Makwana on 1 April, 2022

Bench: A.S. Supehia

      C/SCA/8234/2016                                   ORDER DATED: 01/04/2022



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8234 of 2016
==========================================================
                       MAHILA SAMAKHYA SOCIETY
                                 Versus
                PRAVINBHAI RAMJIBHAI MAKWANA & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS VIDITA D JAYSWAL(6730) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
KHUSHBU D CHHAYA(8093) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                               Date : 01/04/2022
                                ORAL ORDER

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the award dated 16.12.2015 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No.426 of 1993 directing the petitioner-Society to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-.

2. Learned advocate Ms.Jayswal has submitted that the respondent-workman was appointed purely on ad hoc basis and it was not fair on the part of the Labour Court to award compensation till superannuation. She has submitted that in the statement recorded below Exh.73, the respondent- workman has admitted that he has met with an accident, which caused death of one girl. Thus, she has submitted that in view of the admission of the respondent-workman, there is no requirement of holding any departmental inquiry. It is further finally submitted that looking to the service of the petitioner for 22 months i.e. from 11.06.1991 to 28.04.1993, the compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- is on higher side.

Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 04 21:25:55 IST 2022

C/SCA/8234/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2022

3. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Ms.Chhaya has submitted that the award does not require interference since, after examination of documentary as well as oral evidence, the Labour Court has found that termination of the respondent-workman, who was serving as a driver, is in violation of Section 25F and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act). It is submitted by her that since by the time of reference was decided, the respondent-workman reached the superannuation and hence, the compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- was awarded looking to the tenure of his service and wages paid to him. She has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Divisional Controller Maharashtra State road Transport Corporation Vs. Kalavati Pandurang Fulzele, 2022 (2) SC 103, wherein the Apex Court has awarded Rs.3,00,000/- to the casual employee, who has rendered three years of service.

4. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them.

5. It is established fact that the respondent- workman was engaged as a driver with the petitioner-Society and has worked from 11.06.1991 to 28.04.1993. The service got terminated in view of some accident, which had resulted in death of one girl. The evidence on record reveals that the petitioner-Society, without following any Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 04 21:25:55 IST 2022 C/SCA/8234/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2022 provision of Sections 25F and 25H of the I.D. Act has retrenched the respondent-workman.

6. This Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court since the same has been passed, after appreciating the documentary as well as oral evidence. It is admitted by the petitioner- Society that before terminating the service of the respondent-workman, no departmental inquiry or notice has been issued to the respondent- workman and he has been terminated in view of pendency of the criminal case filed against the respondent-workman.

7. Thus, the findings of the Labour Court do not require any interference however, the issue is whether the compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- awarded by the Labour Court to the respondent-workman for rendering service from 11.06.1991 to 28.04.1993 is justified or not.

8. In the case of Kalavati Pandurang Fulzele (supra), the Apex Court has awarded the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the contractual employee, who had worked for three years of service.

9. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality in awarding compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- to the respondent-workman, who has served as a driver.

Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 04 21:25:55 IST 2022

C/SCA/8234/2016 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2022

10. It appears that during pendency of this writ petition, in view of the interim order dated 28.09.2018, the petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the decreed amount, which was deposited by the petitioner on 01.11.2018. The amount of Rs.80,000/- was deposited by the petitioner before the Registry of this Court. The Registry is directed to disburse the aforesaid amount with accrued interest in favour of the respondent-workman-Pravinbhai Ramjibhai Makwana. The rest of the amount of Rs.80,000/- shall be paid to the respondent-workman within a period of two months.

11. The writ petition fails. Rule is discharged.

Sd/-

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) NVMEWADA Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 04 21:25:55 IST 2022

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court