Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Parmar Mohanbhai on 11 January, 2013
Author: K.S.Jhaveri
Bench: Ks Jhaveri
STATE OF GUJARAT....Petitioner(s)V/SPARMAR MOHANBHAI VAJABHAI....Respondent(s) C/SCA/12348/2009 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12348 of 2009 ================================================================ STATE OF GUJARAT....Petitioner(s) Versus PARMAR MOHANBHAI VAJABHAI....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MS AMITA SHAH, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 11/01/2013 ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed challenging the award dated 18.02.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (LCG) No. 91 of 1999 whereby the labour court partly allowing the reference directed lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs. 32,000/- to be paid to the respondent by the petitioner in lieu of the claim of the respondent for reinstatement and backwages.
2. It was the case of the respondent before the labour court who was working with the petitioner department that he was terminated from service without following due procedure of law. The respondent, therefore, filed reference before the Labour Court. The Labour Court after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award of lumpsum compensation. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is preferred.
3. Ms. Amita Shah, learned AGP appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no breach of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the Labour Court ought not to have granted any compensation. She submitted that the respondent was a daily wager and had not continuously worked for 240 days in a calendar year.
4. Having heard learned AGP and having perused the papers on record, more particularly, the impugned award, this Court is of the view that the Labour Court is justified in awarding compensation to the respondent workman in lieu of reinstatement and backwages. The Labour Court in paras (B) & (C ) observed that the attendance of the respondent workman in the years 1991-92, 1992-93, 1994-95, 1996-97 & 1997-98 were for 203.5, 236, 224, 211 and 196 respectively and after including the weekly holidays, it is borne out that the respondent workman had completed 240 days of service. The Labour Court observed that as the project was over and there was no work available, the Labour Court rightly awarded compensation instead of reinstating the respondent workman. This court does not find any infirmity in the impugned award.
5. For the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. No costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) divya Page 3 of 3