Gujarat High Court
Vikas Industries vs Rajaram Siyaram & on 20 February, 2013
Author: K.S.Jhaveri
Bench: Ks Jhaveri
VIKAS INDUSTRIES,THRO'ITS PROPKISHOREBHAI P. HALANI....Petitioner(s)V/SRAJARAM SIYARAM C/SCA/9433/2010 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9433 of 2010 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ VIKAS INDUSTRIES,THRO'ITS PROPKISHOREBHAI P. HALANI....Petitioner(s) Versus RAJARAM SIYARAM & 2....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 1.3 MR P C CHAUDHARI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 20/02/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and award of the Labour Court in Reference (L.C.A.) No.1922 of 1994 dated 23.12.2009, whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioner to pay 50% back-wages to respondent No.3-Naniben Amarsingh-legal heirs of Amarsingh Rajaram for a period from the date of termination of services of Amarsingh Rajaram to 09.02.2009 i.e. the date on which Shri Amarsingh Rajaram passed away and also directed the petitioner to reinstate respondent Nos.1 and 2 on their original post with 50% back-wages and in the event of they having attained the age of superannuation, to pay them 50% back-wages from the date of their termination till the date of their superannuation.
The facts in brief are that the petitioner was the proprietary concern, which was running one Spinning Unit. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and late Shri Amarsingh Rajaram were never employed by the petitioner. There was no relationship of employer and employees between the petitioner and the said respondents. The petitioner was governed by the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and not by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the petitioner was engaged in spinning activity. The petitioner stopped its manufacturing activities from December-1994. Therefore, all the employees of the Vikas Industries were relieved from the services. They were paid their legal dues. Thereafter, the spinning unit was closed. From January-1996, one new entity, namely, Vikas Polymers came into existence of which Shri Kishorbhai P. Halani was not Proprietor. The said Vikas Polymers was engaged in the plastic industry. The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were applicable to the said Vikas Polymers. The proprietor of Vikas Polymers recruited workmen as per his need.
2.1 The said respondents were not employees of the petitioner and they raised an industrial disputes for reinstatement in service with full back-wages, which culminated into Reference (L.C.A.) No.1922 of 1994. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, passed the award, as aforesaid. Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pending the proceedings, Mr.Kishorebhai P. Halani was suffering from cirrhosis of liver and has passed away on 19.12.2011 and the spinning unit was closed. Therefore, the judgment and award of the Labour Court is required to be quashed and set aside and the petition is required to be allowed.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment and award of the Labour Court and submitted that the relief, as prayed for in the petition, may not be granted. Mr.Devendra Amarsingh-legal heirs of respondent No.3 is present before this Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record. Keeping in mind the original owner of the petitioner-company has passed away and the settlement is arrived at between the parties, the interest of justice will be met, if the following order is passed:
The petitioner-company will pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.70,000/- each to respondent Nos.1 to 3 including legal heirs of respondent No.3 in lieu of reinstatement, 50% back-wages and legal liabilities as full and final settlement, within a period of four weeks from today. The award of the Labour Court is substituted as reinstatement, 50% back-wages and legal liabilities are paid as full and final settlement.
6. In view of the above settlement between the parties, the present petition is partly-allowed.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) KOSHTI/ Page 6 of 6