Gujarat High Court
Vidhyaprasad Girdhari Yadav vs Gujarat Composite Limited on 2 May, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4721/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4721 of 2024
==========================================================
VIDHYAPRASAD GIRDHARI YADAV
Versus
GUJARAT COMPOSITE LIMITED & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
IG JOSHI(8726) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SUMAN MOTLA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 02/05/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Workman has filed this petition with the following prayers: -
A) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the form of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order of the controlling authority dated 14.07.2020 as confirmed by the appellate authority by judgment and order dated 22.06.2021 passed in Appeal No.54 of 2020;
B) During admission, pendency and final disposal of this petition be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order passed by Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Mon May 06 20:54:04 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4721/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2024 undefined the controlling authority dated 14.07.2020 as confirmed by the appellate authority by judgment and order dated 22.06.2021 passed in Appeal No.54 of 2020 C) Any other and/or further relief/s that may deem fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted to the petitioner.
2. Brief facts referred in the petition are as under: -
The petitioner herein is working with respondent No.1 company. Respondent No.2 is the Company which took over Respondent No.1 Company in the year 2005, which is subsequent to the issue in question and therefore not joined in the Gratuity Case before Controlling Authority. Before the Appellate Authority, though Respondent No. 2 was joined, no relief was claimed and therefore, the Appellate Authority permitted dropping of Respondent No. 2 from the proceedings.
The petitioner-workman made an application before the Controlling Authority for payment of gratuity by filing Form-I. The date of joining was referred as 06.11.1978 and he worked till 02.11.2003. It was case of the workman that since he had worked continuously for the said period, he would be entitled for payment of gratuity and therefore directions may be issued to the petitioner No.1 - Company for payment of gratuity. The Controlling Authority rejected the application of the petitioner
- workman on the ground that for the period 20.04.2003 to 08.06.2003 there was lockout. Taking note of the fact that for Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Mon May 06 20:54:04 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4721/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2024 undefined the period of lockout i.e. 20.04.2003 to 08.06.2003, whether workman would be entitled for payment of wages or not was subject matter of reference being Reference No.136 of 2003.
The said reference was pending in case of all workmen working with petitioner No.-1 company. During lockout period, 6 workmen were terminated which was also a subject matter of Reference No. 136 of 2003. Reference No. 136 of 2003 was tried and upon adjudication, the Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 07.12.2012, rejected the Reference. Against the award dated 07.12.2012 in Reference No. 136 of 2003, the workmen filed Special Civil Application No. 9126 of 2013 and the same is pending adjudication before this Court. Considering the pendency of petition before this Court, where the subject matter is in relation to whether the workman would be entitled for wages for the period of lockout and also whether the termination of 6 workmen during the said period was legal or not, the Controlling Authority under order dated 14.07.2020 held the application seeking gratuity as premature and rejected the same. Against the order of Controlling Authority dated 14.07.2020, the petitioner preferred appeal registered as Gratuity Appeal No. 70 of 2020 wherein the Appellate Authority also rejected the appeal confirming the order of Controlling Authority. Aggrieved by both the orders dated 14.07.2020 and 22.06.2021 of Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority respectively, present petition is filed.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. I. G. Joshi for the petitioner- workman and learned advocate Mr. Varun Patel for respondent No. 1 - Company and learned advocate Mr. Hamesh Naidu for respondent No. 2.
Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Mon May 06 20:54:04 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4721/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2024 undefined
4. Learned advocate Mr. I. G. Joshi for the petitioner submitted that both the orders are erroneous since the petitioner is entitled for gratuity barring the period of lockout which is under dispute. He submitted that for the period of lockout, which is subject matter of adjudication in Special Civil Application 9126 of 2013, the authority may be directed to exclude the said period and thereafter to determine the amount of gratuity payable to the workman. He submitted that if the said period of lockout is excluded, he would be agreeable for the payment of gratuity and he would not claim the gratuity for the said period in the petition which is pending adjudication.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Varun Patel submitted that in view of statement made by Learned Advocate for the petitioner-workman, matter may be remanded to the Gratuity Authority to determine the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner- workman excluding the period of lockout (49 days).
6. Leaned advocate Mr. Hamesh Naidu for the respondent No.2 submitted no relief is prayed against respondent No.2. The respondent No. 2 was wrongly joined and therefore the Appellate Authority rightly permitted to drop its name.
7. Considered the submissions. It is noticed that in the petition the petitioner - workman on oath has stated as under:
-Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Mon May 06 20:54:04 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4721/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2024 undefined "3.6 The petitioner submits that the respondent employer has also accepted the fact that the petitioner has in fact worked till 20.04.2003 before the controlling authority which ignored by the controlling authority and furthermore the statement of the petitioner that he is ready to forego the wages for 49 days is ignored by the appellate authority. The petitioner makes a statement to the effect before this Hon'ble Court that he is ready to forego the wages of 49 days for the purpose of his statutory dues, payable to him, under the Act."
8. Considering the fact that for the period of lockout (49 days), since the petitioner - workman is ready to forego his wages for determination of gratuity following order is passed: -
(i) The order of Controlling Authority dated 14.07.2020 in Gratuity Case No. 98 of 2018 and the order of Appellate Authority dated 22.06.2021 in Gratuity Appeal No. 54 of 2020 are hereby quashed and set aside.
(ii) The Controlling Authority is directed to exclude lockout period of 49 days foregone by the petitioner on oath and thereafter to determine the amount of gratuity in accordance with law.
(iii) The respondent No.2 being formal party, its presence is not required.Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Mon May 06 20:54:04 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4721/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2024 undefined
(iv) The Controlling Authority shall decide the issue as expeditiously as possible and not beyond 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. Parties shall co-operate.
9. With the above observations and directions, this petition is disposed of. This Court has not gone into the merits of the matter. Notice is discharged.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) SHRIJIT PILLAI Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Mon May 06 20:54:04 IST 2024