SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Guj) 895

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
LAKSHMANSINH DALABHAI PATEL - Appellant
Versus
SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (ADMN) - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19072, 19073, 19074, 19075, 19076 of 2019
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22500, 22501, 22503, 22505, 22487, 22473, 3458 of 2019
Decided On : 30-09-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant : MR DIPAK R DAVE
For The Respondent: MR VISHRUT JANI FOR RC JANI AND ASSOCIATE, MR VISHRUT JANI FOR RC JANI AND ASSOCIATE, MR DIPAK R DAVE

Point of Law: Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the proceedings before Labour Court/Tribunal but essentially the rules of natural justice are to be observed in such proceedings.

Headnote:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 11(1) - Reinstatement - Termination - Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, has directed authorities of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) to pay amount of as a lump-sum compensation to workmen by setting aside their termination of service - All the workmen were appointed in year and were conferred benefits of Temporary Regular Mazdoor (TRM) - It is pertinent to note that after their appointment Department of Telecommunication, under which they were appointed, was converted into a public company viz. BSNL and their service from Department of Telecommunication was shifted to BSNL - Workmen were issued a show-cause notice alleging that Muster Roll with regard to their service produced in the year 1991 was incorrect and false - Workmen replied to aforesaid show-cause notice nothing was done and a second show-cause notice was issued alleging some illegality - whether the misconduct is established or that the punishment of discharge or termination was warranted or not - Whether the misconduct is established or that punishment of discharge or termination was warranted or not.

Finding of the Court : In considered opinion of this Court the view expressed by Tribunal in denying reinstatement to the workmen on ground that they are about to reach the age of superannuation is also erroneous - Reinstatement cannot be denied solely on ground that he or she is about to reach the age of superannuation - Labour court has to examine consequences of non-reinstatement and payment of compensation - Status of the workman, length of service, entitlement of retirement benefits, regular pay, etc are the factors which have to be kept in mind before denying the reinstatement - Award of Labour Court also suffers from non-application of mind on such aspect, and hence the matters are required to be remanded - Since, almost 13 years have passed, and the workmen are at the verge of retirement, it would be appropriate that references are disposed of expeditiously - Impugned awards are quashed and set aside - Matters are remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration. Labour Court is directed to dispose of the references within a period of six months - Captioned writ petitions filed by the BSNL being Special Civil Application are allowed.

Result: As a sequel, writ petitions filed by workmen are disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since the captioned group of petitions arise out of a common award and the facts are also analogous, the same are decided by this common judgment and order. The workmen have challenged the award to the extent of granting reinstatement instead of compensation, whereas the BSNL has challenged the award of granting compensation.

2. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad has directed the authorities of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as a lump-sum compensation to the workmen by setting aside their termination of service. All the workmen were appointed in the year 1985 and were conferred the benefits of Temporary Regular Mazdoor (TRM) on 01.10.1989. It is pertinent to note that after their appointment in the year 2000 the Department of Telecommunication, under which they were appointed, was converted into a public company viz. BSNL and their service from the Department of Telecommunication was shifted to BSNL. The workmen were issued a show-cause notice on 13.08.2001 alleging that the Muster Roll with regard to their service from 01.01.1985 to 31.07.1988 produced in the year 1991 was incorrect and false. The workmen replied to the aforesaid show-cause notice however, nothing was done and a second show-cause notice was issued on 27.01.2004 alleging some illegality. The workmen accordingly replied that the Muster Rolls were verified and counter signed by the concerned officer namely, K.M.Bariya and M.I.Patel and after verification of the Muster Roll, they were conferred the status of Temporary Regular Mazdoor and further regularized as Regular Mazdoor after expiry of three years. The respondent authority again issued the same notice on 13.04.2004, which was replied by the workmen on 25.06.2004 denying all the allegations. Ultimately, the notice dated 30.06.2006 was issued to the workmen purporting to terminate the service after a period of one (01) month from the date of notice. The show-cause notice issued against the petitioner was challenged before the Central Administration Tribunal, Ahmedabad (CAT) by filing original applications however, the same were disposed of on the ground that it does not have jurisdiction to deal with these matters. Being aggrieved by the order of the CAT, Ahmedabad, the workmen along with other employees approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.12965 of 2007 and by the order dated 10.09.2008, this Court has set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal.

2.1 It is the case of the workmen that during pendency of the writ petition and before the proceedings in the Tribunal, the stay was operating with regard to service condition of the petitioner however, in defiance of the stay order, without holding any inquiry, the workmen were terminated from service by the order dated 01.07.2006, which was served on 30.06.2006. The original applications were thereafter, rejected by the CAT, Ahmedabad again on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, which constrained the workmen to file the writ petitions before this Court challenging the order of the Tribunal. The said writ petitions were withdrawn with a liberty to approach the appropriate forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the I.D. Act). The petitioner therefore raised industrial dispute, which came to be referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Ahmedabad for adjudication. After dispute was referred to the Tribunal, the Tribunal by the common award has granted the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the workmen instead of reinstatement as the workmen have reached the age of more than 50 years. The common awards are challenged by the workmen in the captioned writ petitions claiming reinstatement and other benefits, whereas the BSNL has also challenged the said award.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave appearing on behalf of the workmen h

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top