JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. Rule. Learned advocate Ms. Khushbu Chhaya waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-Company.

2. At the outset, learned advocate Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa has submitted that colleagues or co-employees of the petitioner have been granted lump sum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, whereas the respondent-Company has offered a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the full and final settlement to the petitioner.

3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 30.08.2017 passed by the Labour Court No. 2, Junagadh in I.D. Misc. Application No. 3 of 2016.

FACTS

4. The petitioner was serving as a Junior officer under the respondent-Company w.e.f. 13.07.1992. The respondent-Company floated a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and insisted the petitioner and other workmen to apply for VRS during period from 01.10.2002 to 03.10.2002. The petitioner and other 40 workmen refused to accept the same hence, the respondent-Company insisted the employees to accept the VRS and threatened that if they will not accept the same, the authority will remove them from their services. Therefore, the petitioner and other employees filed Misc. Application No. 68 of 2002 in Reference (IT) No. 206 of 2001, which was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot inter alia praying to restrain the respondent from removing them from the services. The Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 04.10.2002 allowed the application and restricted the respondent to remove the petitioner and other employees from service.

5. It appears that pursuant to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme floated by the respondent-Company, the petitioner along with 40 workmen refused to accept the said scheme. Ultimately, the dispute culminated into the references. In the intervening period, it appears that the employees, along with the petitioner, were terminated from service and they were prevented from entering into the office premises. The Reference of the petitioner was numbered as Reference (LCJ) No. 27 of 2003. It is the case of the petitioner that since there was no response by the advocate, the petitioner made applications before the Labour Court requesting to adjourn the reference and ultimately, the Labour Court, Junagadh decided the reference ex parte vide award order dated 20.02.2015 rejecting the same. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application being I.D. Misc. Application No. 3 of 2016 for setting aside the ex parte award, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 30.08.2017.

6. At the outset, as noticed hereinabove and as recorded in the order dated 27.01.2021, the respondent-Company has shown willingness to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner towards full and final settlement looking to his tenure of service i.e. from 1992 to 2002.

7. Learned advocate Ms. Pahwa has submitted that the aforesaid amount is very meager amount and the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which is paid to his colleagues.

8. Thus, the issue only pertains to quantum of compensation in view of the judgment passed by the Labour Court in favour of colleagues of the petitioner and looking to 18 years of service, one Shri Mohanlal Parsottam Sonaria, who had filed Reference (T) Case No. 35 of 2003, which was allowed in part by the Labour Court in view of the full and final settlement of lump sum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Thus, Shri Mohanlal Parsottam Sonaria, who was also terminated on the very same day, after rendering 18 years of service, has entered into the settlement since the respondent-Company has paid him the compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

9. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has served from 1992 to 2002 and terminated on 07.10.2002. Thus, he has rendered 10 years of service. In the considered opinion of this Court, looking to the tenure of the service of the petitioner, it would be appropriate that amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 3,00,00