Termination of service without compliance with statutory provisions is illegal; compensation awarded in lieu of reinstatement is appropriate considering the workman's retirement.

ORDER :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. ADMIT. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the present appeal is taken up for final hearing today.

2. The present appeal emanates from the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 26.07.2023 passed in the captioned Writ Petition, wherein and whereby the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the Writ Petition challenging the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No.10 of 1992 dated 16.12.2009, by which, the Labour Court, after the remand, has confirmed the earlier award dated 16.04.2005 and directed the present appellant-employer to reinstate the workman on his original post with continuity of service and with 30% back-wages. However, the learned Single Judge has altered the award and instead of reinstatement with 30% back- wages, has granted compensation of Rs.3 lacs in lieu of reinstatement and back-wages. The workman has accepted the judgment of the learned Single Judge and is ready and willing to accept an amount of Rs.3 lacs.

3. Learned advocate Ms. R.V. Acharya has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be quashed and set aside since the learned Single Judge has fell in error in confirming the award to the extent of the finding of the Labour Court in favour of the respondent–workman. She has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration the fact that the respondent was a daily-wager and appointed on fixed pay and there was no issue of conducting the departmental inquiry as held by the Labour Court. It is further submitted that the Labour Court has also fell in error in setting aside the order of termination as the respondent–workman remained absent for a period of two years without any reason. It is also submitted that the Reference was filed in the year 1991 after lapse of almost four years. She has submitted that the award as well as the judgement passed by the learned Single Judge are required to be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Shukla appearing for the respondent–workman has urged that the present appeal may not be entertained and the appellant may be directed to pay an amount of Rs.3 lacs as directed by the learned Single Judge to the respondent–workman. It is submitted that the impugned award as confirmed by the learned Single Judge is not required to be quashed and set aside, as the same is appropriately passed.

5. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the respective parties. The facts, as recorded by the learned Single Judge, are not in dispute.

“2.1. The respondent workman was serving with the petitioner since last 5 years as daily wager and the petitioner without issuing notice, notice pay or without issuing retrenchment allowance, terminated the services of the respondent orally on 1/2/1988.

2.2. The respondent workman thereafter filed Reference (LCB) No.10 of 1992 before the Labour Court, Bhavnagar. Considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and hearing the parties, the Labour Court, Bhavnagar passed Judgement and Award dated 16/4/2005 directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent on his original post with continuity of service and with 30% back wages.

2.3. Against the aforesaid Judgement and Award, the petitioner challenged the said Award by preferring Special Civil Application No.14766 of 2005 and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 28/9/2005 set aside the Award dated 16/4/2005 and remanded the proceedings for fresh consideration after giving both the sides an opportunity to lead further evidence.

2.4. On remand, the Labour Court, Bhavnagar passed Judgement and Award dated 16/12/2009 confirming the earlier Award dated 16/4/2005 and directing the petitioner employer to reinstate the respondent workman on his original post with continui