Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 1228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, MAUNA M. BHATT, JJ.
DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY – Appellant
Versus
HASMUKHBHAI RAMJIBHAI SOLANKI – Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 670, 1338 of 2024, Special Civil Application No. 3723 of 2009
Decided On : 03-09-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : H.S. MUNSHAW.
For the Respondent: YAGNESHKUMAR S. JOSHI.
The judgment establishes that continuous employment exists despite temporary breaks, and termination must comply with statutory provisions to be lawful.
Headnote:
Compensation - Employment Termination - Industrial Disputes Act - Sections 2(oo)(bb), 25-F, 25-G, 25-H - The court interpreted the provisions regarding continuous employment and retrenchment, concluding that the workman was entitled to compensation due to improper termination procedures.
Fact of the Case:
The workman was employed as a daily wager from 1986 to 1996, with intermittent breaks. After his termination, he raised a dispute which led to a Labour Court ruling for reinstatement and back wages, later modified by a Single Judge to a lump sum compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the workman had continuous employment despite artificial breaks and that the termination did not follow the required legal procedures under the Industrial Disputes Act, justifying the compensation awarded.
Issues: Whether the workman was continuously employed and if the termination was lawful under the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly regarding the applicability of Sections 25-F, 25-G, and 25-H.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the workman had continuous service despite temporary breaks and that the employer failed to comply with the legal requirements for termination, thus entitling the workman to compensation.
Result: Both appeals are dismissed; the compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- is upheld.
JUDGMENT :
MAUNA M. BHATT, J.
1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw and Mr. Y.S. Joshi waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
2. Both these appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, are directed against the CAV judgment dated 02.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3723 of 2009, wherein the learned Single Judge while modifying the award of the Labour Court, Jamnagar dated 29.01.2009 in Reference (LCJ) No. 284 of 2000, has directed the appellant - District Rural Development Agency to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent-workman within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order.
3. Against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.02.2024, Letters Patent Appeal No. 670 of 2024 is preferred by the District Rural Development Agency (original petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 3723 of 2009) seeking to quash and set aside the impugned CAV Judgment whereas, Letters Patent Appeal No. 1338 of 2024 is preferred by the workman (original respondent in Special Civil Application No. 3723 of 2009) for enhancement of the lumpsum compensation. Since, both these LPAs are filed challenging the order dated 02.02.2024, in SCA No. 3723 of 2009, with the consent of Learned Advocates for the respective parties, they are heard and decided by this common judgment.
4. Facts on record are not in dispute. The appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 670 of 2024 District Rural Development Agency is registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act and is entrusted from time to time, with various development Schemes by the Central Government as well as by the State Government. The funds for the entrusted Schemes are also provided by the respective Governments. The respondent-workman was appointed as daily wager on 17.02.1986 and he worked under different authorities at different places up to March, 1996. The respondent-workman was paid his wages out of contingency fund. It was the case of the appellant-District Rural Development Agency that the workman was appointed for development of certain Schemes and upon completion of the said Scheme on account of non-availability of work, he was discontinued from March, 1996 and therefore it was not a case of illegal termination. For his termination, the workman raised an industrial dispute being Reference (LCJ) No. 284 of 2000 before the Labour Court, Jamnagar. The Labour Court, Jamnagar upon adjudication, directed the appellant-District Rural Development Agency to reinstate the workman with 10% back wages. Aggrieved by which, captioned petition being Special Civil Application No. 3723 of 2009 was filed by the District Rural Development Agency, wherein Learned single judge modified the award by directing the District Rural Development Agency to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- against which, the Letters Patent Appeal No. 670 of 2024 is filed by the District Rural Development Agency seeking to quash and set aside the CAV judgment. Whereas, Letters Patent Appeal No. 1338 of 2024 is filed by the workman seeking enhancement of the lumpsum compensation.
5. Heard learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the appellant-District Rural Development Agency and learned advocate Mr. Yagneshkumar S. Joshi for the respondent-workman.
6. Learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the appellant- District Rural Development Agency submitted that learned Single Judge has fell in error in not appreciating that the workman was appointed purely on temporary and on ad hoc basis as a daily wager. The employment was given to the respondent-workman till completion of the scheme. The scheme work was to be performed by the appellant- District Rural Development Agency since the work was entrusted to it by the State Government. Therefore, upon completion of the Scheme, the workman cannot be stated to be continued in service. Since, the respondent-workman was not appointed on regular basis, the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb)
