Gujarat High Court
President & Anr vs Late Chandubhai Jethabhai Parmar & Ors on 16 February, 2016
Author: Paresh Upadhyay
Bench: Paresh Upadhyay
C/SCA/10097/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10097 of 2015
============================================
PRESIDENT & ANR....Petitioners
Versus
LATE CHANDUBHAI JETHABHAI PARMAR & ORS....Respondents
=============================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW, ADVOCATE for the Petitioners
RULE SERVED for the Respondent No. 2
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
Date : 16/02/2016
ORAL ORDER
1. Challenge in this petition is made to the award passed by Labour Court Nadiad dated 01.09.2014 in Reference (LCN) No.273 of 1992. During the pendency of the Reference, the workman had expired on 21.12.1996 and therefore while allowing the Reference, the Labour Court has awarded 20% back wages to the paid to the legal heirs for the period from the date of alleged termination i.e. 20.06.1988 to the date of death 20.12.1996.
2. Though served, the respondents have chosen not to appear.
3. Mr.Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner Authorities has submitted that the respondent was employed purely on temporary basis, for few days, that too on the scarcity work in the draught situation in the State of Gujarat in the year 1987-88 and his services came to be discontinued since it was not further required. It is submitted that scarcity Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Sun Feb 21 01:26:31 IST 2016 C/SCA/10097/2015 ORDER relief work undertaken by the State Authorities can not be termed to be an 'industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of H.K. Makwana versus State of Gujarat reported in 1994(2) GLR 1002. It is submitted that the proceedings before the Labour Court were not maintainable and in any case, no relief could have been granted to the respondent. It is submitted that even on facts, working for some days in the year 1987-88 and the discontinuance having been challenged in the year 1992 and the Labour Court at this stage directing the reinstatement with 20% back wages, would be huge burden on the Government exchequer, which even otherwise is not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the impugned award be quashed and set aside.
4. Though there is no contest from the other side, it is noted that this is one of the many identical matters which are being considered by this Court today and in all other matters there is appropriate contest from the other side i.e. on behalf of the workman also and therefore, that contest is also taken into consideration qua this petition as well.
5. Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner and having taken into consideration the contest on behalf of the workman in other identical matters and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds as under.
5.1 The bone contention of the petitioner that scarcity relief work undertaken by the State Authorities can not be termed to be an 'industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is well founded. Further, the decision of the Full Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sun Feb 21 01:26:31 IST 2016 C/SCA/10097/2015 ORDER Bench of this Court in the case of H.K. Makwana versus State of Gujarat reported in 1994(2) GLR 1002 will also apply with full force in this fact situation. The petition therefore needs to be allowed on this bone contention.
5.2 There is an additional factor in favour of the petitioner. The so called employment was in the year 1987-88, on some scarcity work. The service was discontinued at the relevant time and the reference is of the year 1992. At this belated stage, fastening the liability of regularisation of service of number of persons, with consequential liability of retirement dues etc., including pension, is also a relevant factor, to be taken into consideration by the Court in this fact situation. On this additional ground also, the impugned award needs interference by this Court. Considering the totality, this Court finds that, the impugned award is unsustainable and the same is required to be quashed and set aside.
6. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed. The impugned award is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) M O Bhati/10 Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Sun Feb 21 01:26:31 IST 2016