COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Since both the writ petitions arise out of the common award dated 07.02.2022 passed by the learned Labour Court, Anand, the same are being decided by this common judgment.

2. By the present writ petitions, the petitioners are impugning the award dated 07.02.2022 passed by the learned Labour Court, Anand in Reference (LCA) Nos.40 of 2013 and 41 of 2013 whereby the learned Labour Court has granted lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- to each workman instead of reinstatement and continuity in service with back wages.

3. The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.15943 of 2022 had joined the respondents as a Peon in January, 2000 while the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.15511 of 2022 had joined the respondents as a Helper in August, 1999. Both the petitioners were orally terminated on 05.06.2013 and 30.05.2013 respectively without following due process of law. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners thereafter raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Anand, who by communication dated 17.07.2013 has made a reference to the learned Labour Court, Anand. The learned counsel submits that by the impugned award, the learned Labour Court, Anand was pleased to hold that there was breach of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that the termination of the petitioners was illegal. However, in the facts of the case, the learned Labour Court has awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- each to both the petitioners. The learned counsel submits that the impugned award was passed in a group of cases. The learned counsel further submits that while awarding a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- to all such employees, the learned Labour Court has overlooked the length of the service put in by the workmen. He submits that the learned Labour Court has granted same amount of lump sum compensation for the workmen who has put in 2 years of service as well as the petitioners who have put in more than 13 years of service. The learned counsel submits that in view of similar treatment granted to the petitioners who have put in longer length of service, the petitioners have impugned the award. The learned counsel limits his claim only to grant of lump sum compensation and submits, upon instructions, that the petitioners are restricting their claim only to the lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement in service and submits that appropriate lump sum compensation be granted in lieu of length of service put in by the petitioners.

4. Per contra, Mr. Dhaval C. Dave, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Jigar M. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent No.1, submits that in the present case, the learned Labour Court has erred in considering the status of the workmen while granting such lump sum compensation and holding that the services of the petitioners were illegally terminated. He submits that in the oral evidence of the petitioners, it has been admitted that the petitioners were working on contract with the respondents and that they were not aware about the name of the contractor by whom they were appointed. The learned Senior Counsel submits that in view of such admission in the cross examination, the petitioners were not entitled for any relief before the learned Labour Court. He further submits that in the impugned award, all the workmen were contractual employees and therefore, they were not entitled for any claim. He submits that the lump sum compensation as awarded is just and proper in view of the admission of the petitioner workmen that they were contractual employees engaged through the contractor. The learned Senior Counsel therefore, submits that no interference is called for in the impugned award.

5. Heard learned counsels for the parties, perused the documents and considered the submissions.

6. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the services of the petitioners were engaged in the months of