Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
K.M. Thaker, J.
Surendranagar Jilla Sahkari Kharid Vechhan Sangh Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
Manubha Kanubha Vaghela and Ors. - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 17725 of 2006
Decided On : 01.02.2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :P.S. Gogia, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Party-in-Person.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that compliance with statutory conditions for retrenchment, such as notifying the seniority list as required by Rule 66 and Rule 81, is crucial, and discrepancies in employee designation can render a retrenchment illegal.
Headnote:
Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Rule 66, Rule 81 - The court found that the retrenchment was not in compliance with the statutory conditions, particularly the failure to notify the seniority list as required by Rule 66 and Rule 81. The court also noted discrepancies in the designation of the employees, which rendered the retrenchment illegal. The court modified the award and directed the petitioner to pay lump sum compensation to the respondents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an award passed in a labour dispute where the respondents alleged illegal termination of their services by the petitioner due to financial difficulties. The appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication, and the Labour Court set aside the termination and directed reinstatement and payment of 25% backwages to the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the retrenchment was not in compliance with the statutory conditions, particularly the failure to notify the seniority list as required by Rule 66 and Rule 81. The court also noted discrepancies in the designation of the employees, which rendered the retrenchment illegal. The court modified the award and directed the petitioner to pay lump sum compensation to the respondents.
Issues: The issues included the compliance of statutory conditions for retrenchment, discrepancies in the designation of the employees, and the relief to be granted to the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the retrenchment was not in compliance with the statutory conditions, particularly the failure to notify the seniority list as required by Rule 66 and Rule 81. The court also noted discrepancies in the designation of the employees, which rendered the retrenchment illegal. The court modified the award and directed the petitioner to pay lump sum compensation to the respondents.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the petition, modified the award, and directed the petitioner to pay lump sum compensation to the respondents.
K.M. Thaker, J.
1. Heard Mr. Gogia, learned advocate for the petitioner sangh. Though served, no one has appeared for respondent No. 2. So far as respondent No. 1 is concerned, the cause list reflects that respondent No. 1 chose to appear as party-in-person, however, respondent No. 1 is also not present when the petition is called out and taken up for hearing.
2. This petition was listed for hearing on 18.1.2016, however, since no one attended the hearing on behalf of the respondents, hearing was adjourned to 28.1.2016 with a view to granting opportunity to the respondents. On 28.1.2016 also the Court considered it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the respondents and therefore, hearing was adjourned today. However, today also no one is present on behalf of respondent No. 1 and on behalf of respondent No. 2 as well.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner sangh submitted that so far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, he did not attend the hearing even before the learned Labour Court and he did not lead any evidence before the learned Labour Court and during admission hearing of this petition also he had not appeared.
4. In present petition, the petitioner sangh has challenged an award dated 31.5.2005 passed in Reference (LCS) No. 13 of 1992.
5. So far as the factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record on the ground that it was facing financial difficulties, the petitioner sangh terminated service of present respondents so as to reduce strength of staff.
6. On the said ground, the petitioner sangh terminated service of the respondents with effect from 30.11.1991.
7. The workmen felt aggrieved by the said action of the petitioner sangh and they raised industrial dispute. The appropriate government referred to the dispute for adjudication vide order of reference dated 21.1.1992. The reference was registered as Reference (LCS) No. 13 of 1992.
8. From the record and from the submission of learned advocate for the petitioner sangh, it appears that during the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, a common statement of claim was filed by both claimants - present respondents. In the said common statement of claim, the claimants - present respondents alleged that their service is terminated illegally and arbitrarily and while retrenching them, the sangh did not comply the principle of last come first go and thereby it committed breach of the condition under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The claimants - present respondents also alleged that they were arbitrarily retrenched and the procedure prescribed by law was not followed.
9. The respondents opposed the said reference and the statement of claim filed in its written statement. In the written statement, the sangh claimed that because of financial constraints, the services of the claimants were retrenched and while retrenching the claimants, the principle of last come first go and other condition prescribed under section 25F viz. payment of compensation was complied. The sangh claimed that one of the claimants viz. Mr. M.K. Vaghela was working as Assistant Manager at the relevant time and the second claimant viz. Mr. V.H. Zala was working as Driver at the relevant time. The sangh also claimed that all conditions and requirements prescribed under law were followed at the time of terminating the service of the respondents by way of retrenchment and that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the sangh. It was also claimed that the sangh sold the only car and that, therefore, there was no post of Driver on which one of the claimants was employed before his retrenchment.
10. During the stage of recording evidence before the learned Labour Court, one of the two claimants, i.e. Mr. M.K. Vaghela filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. On perusal of the affidavit, it appears that in his said affidavit dated 20.2.2004, the deponent Mr. Vaghela mentioned some of the details with reference to the second claimant, i.e
