Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 6820
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M. K. THAKKER, J
NAHIDHUSSAIN NAZIMHUSSAIN SAIYED – Appellant
Versus
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICE (AMTS) – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6545 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR ABID R PATHAN
For the Respondents: MR HS MUNSHAW
The court ruled that 'no service, no pay' applies when employment is hindered by legal suspension, and procedural fairness must be upheld with respect to compensation claims.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Enhancement of compensation - Petitioner, a driver, challenged a Labour Court award of Rs.30,000/- as inadequate after being suspended post-accident - The court held that the Labour Court erred in finding a breach of the Industrial Disputes Act, reaffirming 'no service, no pay' principle. (Paras 5, 8, 9)
(B) Employment Law - Principles of natural justice - The petitioner argued termination without inquiry violated principles of natural justice, but the court found the petition lacked merit as he was not barred from resuming duties post-suspension. (Paras 6, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was suspended post-accident and contested the compensation awarded by the Labour Court, considering his request for alternative work and lack of inquiry prior to termination.
Findings of Court:
The Labour Court's conclusions were not substantiated, and no interference was warranted with the award given that the petitioner was not technically employed during suspension.
Issues: Did the Labour Court err in finding a violation of the Industrial Disputes Act? Was the compensation awarded insufficient?
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized adherence to procedural fairness and non-interference in awards accepted without challenge by the respondent.
Result: This petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks enhancement of compensation. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding procedural unfairness. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. respondent's stance on compensation limitations. (Para 6) |
| 4. court’s view on employment and suspension. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. final decision on appeal dismissal. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.
Munshaw waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1.
2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking enhancement of the lump sum compensation awarded by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.616 of 2011 vide award dated 27.11.2024, whereby the learned Labour Court awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards lump sum compensation in full and final settlement of the claim.
3. The gist of the case is that the petitioner was serving as a driver and met with an accident on 19.10.2010, resulting in the death of a cyclist. Consequently, the driving license of the petitioner was suspended with immediate effect by the Regional Transport OfÏcer under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Upon completion of six months, and after reinstatement of the license by the RTO, the petitioner was allowed to resume duties with effect from 12.04.2011. Claiming salary for the intervening period i.e., from 20.10.2010 to 12.04.2011, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was registered as Reference (LCA) No.616 of 2011. The learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad, vide award dated 27.11.2024, granted lump sum compensation of Rs.30,000/-, which is under challenge in the present petition.
4. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Pathan for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Munshaw for the respondent.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Pathan submits that the respondent-Corporation passed the order of termination dated 20.10.2010 without conducting any departmental inquiry, which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Pathan that neither any suspension order was issued nor was the petitioner paid any subsistence allowance during the relevant period. Hence, the action of the respondent-Corporation is illegal. Learned advocate Mr. Pathan further submits that since the petitioner was not permitted to resume duty despite the reinstatement of his driving license, he is entitled to wages for the said period, and appropriate directions may be issued for payment of the same.
5.1. Learned advocate Mr. Pathan further submits that during the period when the petitioner’s driving license was suspended, he had made a specific request to the respondent-Corporation to assign him alternative work. However, the said request was not accepted. Learned advocate Mr. Pathan further submits that the petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs.16,000/- per month, and for the period of six months, the total salary would amount to more than Rs.1,00,000/-. Despite this, the learned Labour Court has awarded only a lumpsum compensation of Rs.30,000/-, which is grossly inadequate and unjustified. Therefore, Learned advocate Mr. Pathan submits that the impugned award warrants interference and the present petition deserves to be allowed by enhancing the compensation.
6. As against the same, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw appearing for the respondent-Corporation submits that the petitioner met with an accident on 19.10.2010, resulting in the death of a cyclist, and accordingly, his driving license was suspended by the Regional Transport OfÏcer until 20.04.2011. On completion of the suspension period and restoration of his license, the petitioner was permitted to rejoin duty. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that for the period during which the petitioner did not render any service, the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ would apply, and therefore, he is not entitled to any salary for the said duration. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw further submits that the petitioner had submitted an a
