IMPORTANT POINTS
Question whether intra-court appeal lies against an order passed under Article 227 left open.
Section 55 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 does not empower a Sarpanch to enter into a compromise.
Importation of definition of employer from ID Act in the context of Panchayat Act is not proper.
Before accepting a compromise the court should satisfy itself about legality of the same.

Judgment

Dipak Misra, J.

The present appeals, by special leave, assail the judgment and order dated 17.7.2013 in LPA No. 1070/1998 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has opined that against the order of the learned Single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, an intra-court appeal is not maintainable, and also question the defensibility of judgment and order dated 30.7.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 7469 of 1997 whereunder he has concurred with the award passed by the Labour Court which had, on the strength of a compromise entered into by the Sarpanch of Nava Naroda Gram Panchayat, the 2nd respondent with the workman and on that basis had directed his reinstatement in service on the post of a clerk with full back wages.

2. At the outset, it is necessary to clarify that we are not disposed to dwell upon the maintainability of the letters patent appeal before the Division Bench as that issue would be addressed separately in other cases. It is also apposite to mention here that the orders have been assailed by the Gram Panchayat as well as by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’), for both had preferred the intra-court appeal assailing the award of the Labour Court as well as the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. Be that as it may, as the Panchayat has preferred the appeal, it requires to be addressed on merits.

3. The factual score which is necessary to be depicted are that the 1st respondent was appointed as a ‘Mukadam’ with the Gram Panchayat vide order dated 21.5.1995. He was dismissed from service by oral order dated 23.1.1996. The said order of dismissal constrained the first respondent to raise an industrial dispute vide Reference No. 531 of 1996 before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. No written statement was filed before the Labour Court, but a compromise was entered into between the workman and the Sarpanch stating, inter alia, that the workman was working as a clerk in the Gram Panchayat and he would be reinstated in service on the post of Clerk with continuous service and would be entitled to get all future benefits and further whatever amount is payable towards the post of Clerk, would be paid in three monthly instalments and his service would be continuous.

4. The legal acceptability of the award was assailed by the Gram Panchayat on the ground that the Sarpanch had entered into a compromise with the workman without any authority from the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court was null and void. It was urged that in the absence of any resolution by the Gram Panchayat, the compromise and the consequent award were absolutely unsustainable and deserved to be axed in exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 30.7.1998 considering the submission opined that there was no mention in the writ petition that the said compromise was entered into by the village Sarpanch on account of any fraud or misrepresentation or undue influence; that when the Gram Panchayat was made a party and the Sarpanch was representing the said Panchayat, the Sarpanch was entitled under Section 55 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (for brevity, “the Act”), to sign the compromise; that the Sarpanch being the Chief Officer is the employer of the workman as per sub-clause 2 to Section 2(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence, the compromise executed between him and the workman was valid and legally enforceable; that while interpreting the award on the strength of compromise, it was open to the Panchayat to reinstate him on the post of Mukadam, the post which he was holding at the time of his retrenchment and that when there was admission in respect of the compromise before the Labour Court, there was no illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court. Being of this view, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

5. The Gram Panchayat and th