The court held that lump sum compensation is just for workmen whose employment was wrongly terminated, balanced against the duration of service.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned counsel Mr. Yogen Pandya, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent.

2. Present petition is filed by the petitioner-State under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) challenging the judgment and award dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Valsad (hereinafter be referred to as “the Labour Court”) in Reference (LCV) No. 134 of 2016, whereby, the learned Judge has partly allowed the Reference in favour of the respondent-workman granting 50% in lieu of reinstatement and consequential benefits.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the respondent-workman was working with the petitioner department as a Watchman since last ten years and drawing wages of Rs. 4,000/- per month. It is alleged that, the services of the respondent-workman came to be terminated orally on 01.07.2015 and therefore, the respondent-workman filed claim statement before the Labour Court, Valsad. That, the petitioner opposed the reference by filing a detailed Written Statement before the Labour Court, Valsad. After hearing all the concerned parties and after examining the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record, the Labour Court passed the impugned judgment and award dated 20.02.2024 in Reference (LCV) No. 134 of 2016, whereby, the learned Judge partly allowed the Reference as aforesaid.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Valsad in Reference (LCV) No. 134 of 2016, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

5. Heard Mr. Mrunal Dholaria, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the petitioner-State and Mr. Yogen Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman.

6. Learned AGP Mr. Dholaria has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on record and the provisions of the Act and therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the Labour Court has not considered the fact that work was based on the grant issued by the High Authority and there was no permanent work available and the petitioner had also produced relevant documents showing grants issued by the High Authority from the period of 2012-2015, however, without considering the aforesaid aspect the Labour Court has granted compensation to the respondent which is without application of mind and without proper apprehension of evidence. He has submitted that the respondent-workman had not worked for 240 days in a given year and therefore, there was no violation of provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. He has submitted that it was the primary duty of the respondent-workman before the Labour Court to prove that he had worked for 240 days however, no such documents were produced before the Labour Court and therefore, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is erroneous, illegal and unjust and without proper application of mind. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned AGP Mr. Dholaria has urged that the impugned award is required to be quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed.

7. As against that, learned counsel Mr. Yogen Pandya, appearing for the respondent, has opposed the present petition and submitted that there is no any infirmity or any illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court and therefore, no interference is required