Back
2021 Supreme(Guj) 254
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.P. THAKER, J.
Shantilal Muljibhai Gorichi – Petitioner
Versus
Sarpanch Arla Gram Panchayat and Others – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 15142 of 2010
Decided On : 31-03-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.H. Pathak.
For the Respondents: Mr. Dipak R. Dave, Ms. Khyati P. Hathi.
Point of Law: Labour Law - Relief of reinstatement - Granting of relief of reinstatement after a gap of almost 14 years, no useful purpose will be served and this Court deems fit to order grant of compensation as full and final settlement of claim, in lieu of reinstatement.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - I.D. Act - Section 25(F), (G) and (H) – Workmen – Termination from service - Award passed by Labour Court whereby claim put up by petitioner has been rejected – Challenged - Case of petitioner that he was working under the respondents as Vijdi Gar Helper since for more than 14 years and his services have been terminated without following due procedure of continued and as and when respondent no. 2 started the scheme, he be given priority without back wages. According to him, he has completed 240 days of service. law on 01.03.1996. It is contended by the petitioner that he has filed the Reference (L.C.J.) before the Labour Court, Jamnagar.
Finding of the court: Panchayat has committed the breach of mandatory provisions of the I.D. Act and the fact that the assertion made on behalf of the workman that at the time of his retrenchment, he has served for more than 14 years in Panchayat which has not been denied by the Panchayat. If lump sum amount of monetary compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded, then, it will meet the end of justice - Considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tapash Paul vs. BSNL and Another, 2016 (1) Scale 92 and BSNL vs. Bhurumal, 2014 (7) SCC 177, this Court is of the view that in the facts of this case granting of relief of reinstatement after a gap of almost 14 years, no useful purpose will be served and, therefore, this Court deems fit to order grant of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as full and final settlement of the claim, in lieu of the reinstatement. Such amount be paid to the workman by the employer after proper verification of the identify by an account payee cheque/pay order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the workman shall be entitled to claim interest at the rate of 9% from today till the date of actual realization.
Result: Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
A.P. THAKER, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned award dated 12.08.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference L.C.J. No. 174/1996 whereby the claim put up by the petitioner has been rejected.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working under the respondents as Vijdi Gar Helper since for more than 14 years and his services have been terminated without following due procedure of law on 01.03.1996. It is contended by the petitioner that he has filed the Reference (L.C.J.) No. 174/1996 before the Labour Court, Jamnagar. It is further contended by the petitioner that the Labour Court has partly allowed the Reference by order dated 12.08.2009 directing respondent no. 1 to reinstate the workman if the scheme of Vij Gar is continued and if the scheme is not continued and as and when respondent no. 2 started the scheme, he be given priority without back wages. According to him, he has completed 240 days of service. It is also contended that the Labour Court has not considered the fact that on applying the principles of lifting vail, the real employer is the Vij Company and the wages were paid by cheque by the Electricity Company and the workman was working under supervision and control of the officers of the Electricity Company. It is further contended by the petitioner that the Labour Court has not considered the factual aspects as well as legal aspects and has committed serious error of facts and law in passing the impugned award. On all these grounds, the petitioner has prayed to allow the present petition.
3. Heard Mr. P.H. Pathak, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Khyati Hathi, learned advocate for respondent no. 1 and Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate for respondent no. 2 through video conferencing.
4. Mr. P.H. Pathak, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the workman was working as helper in the lighthouse and he preferred the impugned reference before the Labour Court, which has passed the award dated 12.08.2009. While referring to the award, he has submitted that the Labour Court has observed that there was breach of Section 25(F), (G) and (H) of the I.D. Act and accordingly, the reference was allowed. He has submitted that while granting reinstatement, no order for back wages has been passed by the Labour Court and it amounts to refusal of the prayer and, therefore, the workman has preferred this petition for getting relief of back wages. According to him, the non-granting of back wages by the Labour Court is not legal and valid. He has submitted that in such a case “if” and “but” are not available. However, the Labour Court has passed the impugned award “if” and “but.” He has submitted that when the workman was ordered to be reinstated, then, as consequential relief, the back wages ought to have been granting to the workman. Of course, he has submitted that due to length of time spent, the workman has crossed the retirement age and now, he is aged of 60 years. He has submitted that the award of Labour Court may be modified to that extent by granting back wages. He has relied upon the two decisions in the case of Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192 and Anoop Sharma vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Panipat, (2010) 5 SCC 497. For his submissions, he has submitted that when the workman was entitled to reinstatement, the full back wages ought to have been granted by the Labour Court.
5. Ms. Khyati Hathi, learned advocate for respondent no. 1 has submitted that the scheme of the Vijadi Ghar is not in existence. She has submitted that the scheme was flouted by the GEB and, therefore, the Panchayat has nothing to do it. She has submitted that if the appointment is made by the GEB, then, the Panchayat has no objection. She has submitted that the workman was the employer of the GEB. She has submitted that the termination of the workman
