Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 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.

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 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 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.