Gujarat High Court
Thakor Chandanji Chehuji vs Executive Engineer on 2 September, 2021
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: R.M.Chhaya, Nirzar S. Desai
C/LPA/614/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 614 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4486 of 2015
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 615 of 2021
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4487 of 2015
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 616 of 2021
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4488 of 2015
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 617 of 2021
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4489 of 2015
==========================================================
THAKOR CHANDANJI CHEHUJI
Versus
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY(1060) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent
- State
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 02/09/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI)
1. By way of this group of Letters Patent Appeals, the appellants herein - original petitioners have challenged Page 1 of 11 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 05 21:13:33 IST 2021 C/LPA/614/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021 the order dated 12.02.2018 passed in the respective petitions filed by them, whereby while disposing of the petitions, the learned Single Jude was pleased to issue direction that the appellants - original petitioners be paid sum of Rs.45,000/- by the present respondent towards lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 1.1 Since the facts as well as the issues involved in all these appeals are identical, all these four appeals are heard together and are being decided together, by this common judgment and order.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Prabhakar Upadhyay as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Megha Chitaliya both have consented for taking up all four matters together and to hear and decide it finally and hence all these appeals are heard and decided finally.
3. On 26.8.2021, this Court passed the following order.
"Heard Mr.Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned advocate for the appellants and Ms.Megha Chitaliya, learned AGP for the respondents.
Considering the issue involved in these appeals as regards quantum of lumsum compensation, Mr.Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned advocate for the appellants prayed that the matter be taken up for final Page 2 of 11 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 05 21:13:33 IST 2021 C/LPA/614/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021 disposal. Mr.Upadhyay has also argued only on the aspect of enhancement on the quantum of lumsum compensation.
Heard for final disposal. For orders."
3.1 As can be seen from the aforesaid order, since learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay has confined these appeals only to the extent of enhancement of the amount of lumpsum compensation, the matters are heard and decided keeping in mind this limited aspect only. 3.2 For the purpose of deciding this group of appeals, Letters Patent Appeal No.614 of 2021 is treated as a lead matter and facts of Letters Patent Appeal No.614 of 2021 are considered for adjudicating the issue on hand.
4. Brief fact giving rise to the filing of present Letters Patent Appeal is stated as under:
4.1 It is the case of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.4486 of 2015 that he was appointed as Labourer in September, 1987 by the present respondent and from September, 1987 till 31.03.1998 he worked regularly and continuously with the respondent till his services were terminated orally and illegally by the Page 3 of 11 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 05 21:13:33 IST 2021 C/LPA/614/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021 respondent, without following due procedure of law as well as without complying with the principles of natural justice.
At the time when his services were terminated, he was paid sum of Rs.61.90 per day towards daily wages. After the termination of the present appellant in the year 1998, after delay of 10 years he raised industrial dispute which culminated into Reference (LCP) No.12 of 2009 whereby he prayed for reinstatement with back-wages. 4.2 The Labour Court, Palanpur, after considering the material on record and evidence adduced by the respective parties, on appreciation of material on record as well as the evidence, rejected the Reference of the present appellant vide award dated 22.09.2014. While rejecting the Reference preferred by the present appellant, the learned Labour Judge, Palanpur arrived at a specific finding that the present appellant did not work for more than 240 days in each year from the year 1988 to 1997. Not only that, except for once, in no other year the present appellant worked for 240 days under the respondent and in a year preceding the termination of the present appellant also the appellant did not work for 240 Page 4 of 11 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 05 21:13:33 IST 2021 C/LPA/614/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021 days. The Labour Court also arrived at conclusion that there is no breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID Act', for short) and ultimately rejected the Reference of the present appellant.
4.3 The appellant challenged the said award dated 22.09.2014 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Palanpur in Reference (LCB) No.12 of 2009 by filing Special Civil Application No.4486 of 2015. The said writ petition was heard by the learned Single Judge and while passing the order dated 12.02.2018, the learned Single Judge took into consideration two undisputed facts i.e. (i) that the present appellant was relieved in light of policy decision of the State Government vide Government Resolution issued in the month of March, 1998 and (ii) that the claimant raised the dispute in the year 2009 i.e. almost after 10 years after he was relieved from the services. The learned Single Judge also took into consideration the fact that claimant i.e. the present appellant failed to place any material on record to support his claim with regard to his attendance and to establish that the details, which the respondent placed on record Page 5 of 11 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 05 21:13:33 IST 2021 C/LPA/614/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021 were incorrect, and that he actually worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months of his termination. In fact, the learned Single Judge observed that during the tenure of 09 years from the year 1988 to 1997, it was only one phase of 12 months during which the present appellant worked for 240 days or more days. Even otherwise, during the most phase of 12 months, the appellant worked for less than 240 days. Even during the relevant period i.e. preceding of twelve months of his termination also he worked for less than 240 days. The learned Single Judge also confirmed the finding of the Labour Court in respect of the fact that respondent, by issuing notice of termination, has not violated the provisions of Sections 25F of the 'ID Act'. The learned Single Judge also considered the case of the present appellant by considering the aspect whether the provisions of Section 25G of the 'ID Act' has been violated or not and found that there is no material on record to indicate that provisions of Section 25G of the 'ID Act' or Rule 81 of the Rules framed thereunder are violated.
4.4 Considering the aforesaid aspects, the learned Single Page 6 of 11 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 05 21:13:33 IST 2021 C/LPA/614/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021 Judge, coupled with the fact that the Reference was preferred after unexplained delay of more than 10 years, disposed of the petition by awarding lumpsum compensation of Rs.45,000/- in lieu of reinstatement to be paid by the respondent to the present appellant vide four separate orders, in each of the petition, dated 12.02.2018. It is those orders which are subject matter of appeal before this Court by way of present appeals.
5. As stated hereinabove, learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay has confined these appeals only for the purpose of enhancement of lumpsum compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid limited aspect, he submitted that even if it is assumed, without admitting, that the present appellants have not worked for more than 240 days in each year, except for one year and they did not work for more than 240 days in the presiding year of their termination, then also considering their length of service, the amount of compensation awarded is too meager. Learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay submitted that all the present appellants have put in around 10 years' services Page 7 of 11 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 05 21:13:33 IST 2021 C/LPA/614/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021 under the respondent and, therefore, irrespective of the fact as to whether they have served for 240 days or not in each year, only length of their services is considered then also lumpsum compensation of RS.45,000/- cannot be said to be adequate compensation. He submitted that looking to the length of services of the present appellants, they deserve to be paid at least a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs in respect of each of the present appellant as lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Megha Chitaliya vehemently opposed these appeals and by referring the award passed by the Labour Court, Palanpur as well as judgment dated 12.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge submitted that, in fact the present appellants, if the evidence are appreciated stricto senso, are not entitled to compensation of Rs.45,000/-. She submitted that the Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge have specifically arrived at conclusion that there is no breach of provisions of Sections 25F and 25G of the 'I.D.Act' and that the present appellants have not completed 240 days in a year preceding their termination Page 8 of 11 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 05 21:13:33 IST 2021 C/LPA/614/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021 and during 9 years which according to workmen they have worked under the present respondent, during that time also, except for one year, in no other year they have worked for more than 240 days. When the appellants could not produce any material in their favour, either before the Labour Court or before the Learned Single Judge, they are not entitled to any compensation at all, more particularly when the dispute was raised after more than 10 years after the termination of the present appellants. However, considering the totality of the circumstances, the learned Single Judge awarded sum of Rs.45,000/- to be paid to each of the present appellant towards lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and, therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is absolutely just, legal and proper and the present appeals deserve to be dismissed.
7. Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, having perused the order passed by the Labour Court as well as by the learned Single Judge, the record of Special Civil Application and having considered the evidence on record, we have noticed Page 9 of 11 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 05 21:13:33 IST 2021 C/LPA/614/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021 certain facts, which have come on record and which the learned advocate for the appellants could not dispute by placing on record any evidence contrary to the facts that the present appellants though have worked for around 9 years or more under the respondent except for one year, they did not work for more than 240 days under the respondent. Same way, none of them also worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the year of their termination. They also could not establish that while terminating their services the respondent has committed breach of Sections 25F and 25G of the 'ID Act' and Rule 81 of the Rules framed thereunder and, therefore, as far as those findings of the Labour Court, which are confirmed by the learned Single Judge, are concerned, we are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Labour Court as confirmed by learned Single Judge and we do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the same. However, as far as aspect of lumpsum compensation is concerned, though the learned Single Judge was right in awarding lumpsum compensation, on overall consideration of the facts of the case, we are of the view Page 10 of 11 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 05 21:13:33 IST 2021 C/LPA/614/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2021 that the compensation of Rs.45,000/- awarded by the learned Single Judge is required to be enhanced to Rs.1 lakh looking to the totality of the facts and ends of justice would be served if the compensation is enhanced to Rs.1 lakh to be paid to the present appellants by the present respondent. Such enhanced compensation of Rs.1 lakh be paid to the present appellants, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of this order.
8. With the aforesaid direction the present appeals stand disposed of with no order as to costs.
(THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA, J) (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) MISHRA AMIT V. Page 11 of 11 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 05 21:13:33 IST 2021