Point of Law: Under the facts and circumstances of the case, breach of Section 25(f) of the ‘ID Act’ only is proved and the learned Single Judge has taken a view that breach of Sections 25(h) and 25(g) of the ‘ID Act’ are not sustainable.

JUDGMENT :

NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.

1. By way of the present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, the present appellants – original workmen have challenged the even orders dated 27.06.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.1605 of 2016 and in Special Civil Application No.1460 of 2016. The learned Single Judge, disposed of the petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.1605 of 2016 by partly setting aside and modifying the award impugned passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (T) No.85 of 2010 wherein vide award dated 13.10.2015 the learned Labour Judge partly allowed the Reference preferred by the workman and directed the employer to reinstate the workman with 10% back-wages and continuity of service. Similarly, the learned Single Judge, disposed of the petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.1460 of 2016 by partly setting aside and modifying the award impugned passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (T) and 86 of 2010 wherein vide award dated 13.10.2015 the learned Labour Judge partly allowed the Reference preferred by the workman and directed the employer to reinstate the workman with 10% back-wages and continuity of service. The learned Single Judge by modifying the aforesaid award impugned, in both the writ petitions, granted lumpsum compensation of Rs.45,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively to the workmen in lieu of reinstatement with continuity of their services and 10% back-wages and directed the respondent herein – original petitioner to pay the amount of lumpsum compensation, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the orders.

2. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid even order dated 27.06.2018, both the workmen – original respondents preferred these Letters Patent Appeals challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27.06.2018.

3. On 29.07.2021, this Court passed the following order in both the writ petitions being Special Civil Application No.1460 of 2016 and Special Civil Application No.1605 of 2016.

“Heard Mr.Yogen Pandya, learned advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pandya, learned advocate submits that he restricts the prayer only to the extent of enhancement of lumpsum compensation.

In view of the aforesaid statement of Mr. Pandya, issue Notice to the respondents returnable on 18.08.2021.”

3.1 Since the Notice was issued, in both the appeals, only for the purpose of enhancement of lumpsum compensation by consent of the parties the matters were heard finally and the same were considered only for the purpose of enhancement of lumpsum compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge.

4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are stated as under:

FACTS OF LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.654 OF 2021 :

4.1 The workman was serving under present Respondent No.2 as Peon on a monthly salary of Rs.1350/- and as per his say he was serving since five years and worked for more than 240 days in each year at the time of his termination. His services came to be terminated without following due procedure as prescribed under the law with effect from 31.03.2006 orally. In view of his oral termination, after four years he preferred Reference Case (T) No.85 of 2010. In the said Reference, the learned Judge, Labour Court, Jamnagar held that conditions of sections 25(f), 25(g) and 25(h) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’, for short) are breached and accordingly the learned Labour Judge passed award directing the present respondent to reinstate the workman (present appellant) with continuity of services and with 10% back-wages.

4.2 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the present respondent preferred Special Civil Application No.1605 of 2016 before the learned Single Judge.

FACTS OF LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.656 OF 2021 :

4.3 The workman was serving under present Respondent No.2 as Sweeper on a monthly salary of Rs.450/- and as per his say he was serving since three ye