Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7974/2011 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7974 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
AMRELI
DISTRICT PANCHAYAT & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHHAGANBHAI
MOHANBHAI SIDDHPURA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HS MUNSHAW for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MR PP KASVALA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 26/09/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner –
Amreli District Panchayat along with Taluka Development Officer,
Taluka Panchayat, Amreli, is before this Court being aggrieved by
award and order dated 11.04.2011 in Reference (LCA) No.65 of 2003,
whereby the learned Judge of Labour Court, Amreli, was pleased to
order payment of Rs.1 lac as lump sum compensation in lieu of
reinstatement as well as back wages.
2. Notice was issued on
30.06.2011. The same is served and learned Advocate Mr.Kasvala
appears for the respondent-workman.
2.1 The matter requires
consideration.
3. RULE.
Learned Advocate Mr.Kasvala waives service of Rule on behalf on
behalf of the respondent-workman.
At the request of
learned Advocate Mr.Munshaw for the petitioners, the matter is taken
up for final disposal, to which learned Advocate Mr.Kasvala for the
respondent has no objection.
4. Learned Advocate for
the petitioners submitted that the respondent-workman was serving as
part-time peon in an Ayurvedic Clinic at village Gokharwala, Tal. &
Dist. Amreli. It is not in dispute that he was service since
01.03.1987 and he continued in service till 28.02.2002, the period
comes to about 15 years. The respondent-workman was getting Rs.900/-
per month as remuneration. The date of birth of the
respondent-workman is 05.03.1958, i.e. he is of 53 years of age
approx. and retirement age is 58 years.
4.1 Learned Advocate
for the petitioners submitted that even the ‘Vaidhya’, who was
attending this Ayurvedic Clinic, was also on part-time basis and
Clinic was run by him in one room, at his residence, as was expected
by the authorities.
4.2 Learned Advocate
for the petitioner submitted that if this amount of Rs.1 lac is
maintained, that will work harsh on the public exchequer and it will
be setting a wrong precedent, more particularly when the
respondent-workman was a part-timer and was getting Rs.900/- per
month.
5. As against this,
learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the
respondent-workman was in service for 15 years, he remained out of
service for 9 years and still, he has about 5 years to go and
therefore, the amount awarded is absolutely just and proper. In
support of his submission, he submitted that on the basis of Rs.900/-
per month, if back wages are to be calculated, it will come roughly
about Rs.97,200/- and therefore, the amount awarded by way of lump
sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages is just and
proper.
6. Taking into
consideration the aforesaid facts, with rival submissions of the
learned Advocates for the parties, the Court is of the opinion that
the amount awarded is little on higher side and is required to be
reduced, more particularly when this amount is to come from a public
body like Gram Panchayat, which in turn will be getting the amount
from Taluka Panchayat and District Panchayat.
6.1 Taking into
consideration the fact that it was absolutely on part-time basis that
the respondent-workman was employed and he was getting Rs.900/- per
month, meaning thereby his duty hours were restricted to a few hours
in a day and for remaining hours, he was supposed to attend his own
other work, this Court is of the opinion that if the amount is
reduced to Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Only), it will serve
the ends of justice.
7. Accordingly, the
petition is partly allowed. The petitioners are directed to pay an
amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Only) to the
respondent-workman. Rule is made absolute. No costs.
At the request of the
learned Advocate for the respondent-workman it is directed that the
petitioners shall pay this amount as expeditiously as possible, but
not later than 15.10.2011. This time limit is prescribed taking into
consideration the ensuing Diwali.
A copy of this
judgment and order be made available to learned Advocate Mr.Munshaw
for its onward communication for compliance.
(Ravi
R.Tripathi, J.)
*Shitole
Top