IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the breach of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and justified the enhancement of lump-sum compensation instead of reinstatement due to the closure of the unit and the petitioner's future service until retirement.

JUDGMENT :

PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.

1. ADMIT. Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent. With consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. Both these Letters Patent Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 04.05.2023 in Special Civil Application No. 9170 of 2013. Therefore, with joint request of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, both the appeals are taken up together for hearing.

3. Letters Patent Appeal No. 211 of 2024 is filed by the original petitioner who had preferred writ petition, namely, Special Civil Application No. 9170 of 2013, inter-alia praying for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned award dated 18.02.2013 passed by the learned Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No. 131 of 2007 and further to reinstate the petitioner.

4. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties partly allowed the writ petition, wherein it was observed by the learned Single Judge that there was a breach of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”). However, the Unit in which the respondent was working was shutdown. Therefore, there cannot be an order of reinstatement. In that circumstances, it was observed by the learned Single Judge that original respondent has worked for a period of 19 years and was having future service of 17 years. Therefore, the lump-sum compensation, as awarded by the learned Labour Court of Rs. 20,000/- was to meager and the lump-sum compensation was enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/- from Rs. 20,000/-. It was further observed that if such amount is not paid within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order, then the same shall be paid with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of actual payment. Original petitioner has preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 211 of 2024 challenging non-granting of reinstatement, whereas the State Government has preferred another Letters Patent Appeal No. 101 of 2024 challenging the enhancement of compensation from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- and these are the directions, which are challenge in both the Letters Patent Appeals.

5. The factual matrix which gave to rise of the present Letters Patent Appeals is that the original petitioner was working as Office Clerk in the office of the original respondent No. 2 from 01.12.1988 and was drawing salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month. It was alleged that original petitioner was terminated from the services on 01.05.2007 after 19 years of worked and the respondent had not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act. In this context, the petitioner had served demand notice to the respondents and filed complaint and raised industrial disputes before the conciliation officer, but the issue was not resolved between the parties and therefore, it was referred to the learned Labour Court, Surendranagar being Reference (LCS) No. 131 of 2007. After hearing both the parties, the learned Labour Court observed that there was a breach of Section 25 (F), (G) and (H) of the Act. However, as the Unit is actually closed, there cannot be question of reinstatement.

6. We have heard learned advocate Mr. U.T. Mishra for the appellant-original petitioner in Letters Patent Appeal No. 211 of 2024 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Roshni Patel for the appellant-original respondent in Letters Patent Appeal No. 101 of 2024.

7. Learned advocate Mr. U.T. Mishra has contended that there is clear case of breach of Section 25 (F), (G) and (H) of the Act and therefore, reinstatement is the only relief. The learned Single Judge has enhanced the compensation by not appreciating the fact that the original petitioner would have been reinstated as the respondent has pursuant to termination of petiti