IMPORTANT POINT
Termination without a proper inquiry and adherence to statutory procedures is unlawful, warranting reinstatement and back wages.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. Admit. Mr. Hardik Dave, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent No. 1.

2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. The present appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, 1865, is directed against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 22.10.2018 passed in caption writ petition, wherein the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant assailing the award dated 06.12.2003 passed by the Labour Court at Valsad in Reference (LCV) No. 2001 of 1990.

4. The facts as recorded by the learned Single Judge are not in dispute with regard to the engagement of the respondent as a workman and his termination. It appears that respondent-workman was illegally terminated on 10.06.1989, which culminated into Reference (LCV) No. 2001 of 1990. The respondent-workman was employed as a Octroi Clerk in December, 1983 and he worked with the Nagarpalika for almost 06 to 07 years, till his services came to be terminated on oral instruction on 10.06.1989. From the tenor of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we find that the Nagarpalika has very sloppily taken the reference proceedings .

5. In the captioned writ petition, the Nagarpalika has challenged the award dated 06.12.2003 as well as the order dated 06.12.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Valsad. Thus, the award which was passed on 06.12.2003 is sought to be challenged by filing captioned writ petition in the year 2015.

6. From the award, it appears that the Nagarpalika did cooperate with the proceedings hence, the award directing the Nagarpalika to reinstate the workman with 75% back wages and continuity of service was passed.

7. After consuming almost 06 years, the Nagarpalika filed Misc. Civil Application No. 36 of 2009 under Section 26A of the Industrial Dispute (Gujarat) Rules, 1966. However, it appears that the Labour Court directed the Nagarpalika to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- cost to the workman, and since the same was not paid, the Labour Court rejected the Misc. Civil Application No. 36 of 2009 vide order dated 06.12.2014. The learned Single Judge has specifically recorded that the Nagarpalika neglected the proceedings and wasted the opportunities given to them.

8. Learned advocate Mr. Shah, appearing for the appellant has submitted that the advocate, who initially appeared before the Labour Court, did not remain present in the proceedings and hence, the Nagarpalika did not know about the proceedings. He has submitted that even the workman also did not remain present in the proceedings and hence, it took time in deciding the reference proceeding and hence, it is urged that the direction issued by the Labour Court directing the workman to be reinstated in service may be set aside.

9. Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the appellant, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in the case of Dharmsinh Desai University vs. Natubhai Kantibhai Raval, 2023 (3) GLR 1783 has submitted that the workman may be paid suitable compensation instead of reinstatement. It is submitted that the workman had only worked for 421 days and hence, looking to this engagement for such period, he may be paid appropriate compensation.

10. Per contra, Mr. Hardik Dave, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-workman has submitted that the order passed by the Labour Court, as confirmed by the learned Single Judge, may not be disturbed. He has submitted that the workman had reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2017.

11. Learned advocate for the respondent - workman has invited our attention to the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No. 41 of the judgment, and has submitted that right from the inception, the appellant-Nagarpalika neglected the proceedings before the Labour Court. It is submitted that despite opportunities offered to the Nagarpalika, they did not