Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4374/2000 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4374 of 2000
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1292 of 2000
======================================
TATA
CHEMICALS LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GOVINDBHAI
THAKARSINH MALAM - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance
:
MR KM PATEL for Petitioner(s) :
1,
MR AK CLERK for Respondent(s) :
1,
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 10/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. These
petitions are directed against the judgement and award dated 17th
September 1999 passed by Labour Court, Jamnagar, in Reference (LCJ)
no.1933 of 1990 whereby the Labour Court has partially allowed the
reference and granted compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the
respondent-workman. Therefore the employer has filed the above
Special Civil Application No.4374 of 2000 challenging the said award
and the workman has filed Special Civil Application No.1292 of 2000
in so far as the compensation is inadequate.
2. This
Court by earlier order dated 3rd May 2000 directed the
petitioner employer to deposit the sum of Rs.40000/- as a
precondition of grant of interim relief. Accordingly the
petitioner-employer had deposited the said amount in this Registry,
but the respondent-workman could not withdraw the said amount as he
was not able to furnish security.
3. The
case of the respondent-workman is that he was working with the
petitioner-employer as Issue Man in General Stores of the factory.
During security check, a drum containing 25 kg. of Potassium Iodate
of the value of approximately Rs.8900/- was found hidden in a wooden
box in the cabin of the driver of the vehicle. On inquiry it was
learnt that the respondent had masterminded the plan for arranging
taking away the drum outside the factory premises with the help of
contractor’s workmen. The respondent workman therefore came to be
dismissed. He therefore raised a dispute which was referred to the
Labour Court wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed.
4. Heard
the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the
relevant documents on record. Admittedly no departmental inquiry was
held against the petitioner. He was dismissed from service because of
loss of confidence. The respondent workman has put in a long service
with the petitioner employer. Having considered all these factors and
especially the long services rendered by the respondent I am of the
view that grant of an additional compensation in the sum of
Rs.1,10,000/- would meet the ends of justice. Mr. D.G. Chauhan is not
able controvert this proposition.
5. In
the premises aforesaid, the petitioner-employer is directed to pay a
further sum of Rs.1,10,000/- by way of compensation, in addition to
Rs.40000/- already awarded by the Labour Court. The payment shall be
paid to the respondent-workman within a period of six weeks from
today. The judgement and award of the Labour Court is modified
accordingly. Consequently Special Civil Application No.1292 of 2000
is partly allowed and rule is made absolute accordingly with no
order as to costs. Special Civil Application No.4374 of 2000 is
dismissed and rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
6. It
is clarified that the compensation granted to the respondent-workmen
shall by by way of final settlement in respect of all the claims of
the respondent-workman. The amount lying in the Registry shall be
paid to the respondent-workman by way of account payee cheque.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
ar
I
Top