Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8541/2010 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8541 of 2010
=========================================================
MOHANLAL
B KOSHTI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MANAGER
- Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MRUDUL M BAROT for Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 27/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
By
way of present petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for
modifying the impugned judgment and award dated 13th May
2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Appeal (IC)
No.29 of 2007 and granting reinstatement to the petitioner in
respondent-Company.
It is the case of the petitioner
that the petitioner was working in Rangati Department with the
respondent since 01st December 1992. It is submitted that
the petitioner was not getting attendance card, identity card and
holiday card from the respondent-Company. The respondent was paying
amount of bonus and holiday by taking signature on plain papers.
Therefore, the petitioner had taken objection and, so he was
terminated from service without following due procedure under the
law. Therefore, the petitioner had filed T. Application No.215 of
1997 on 12th August 1997, which was ultimately withdrawn
and subsequently another Application No.568 of 1997 for
reinstatement, which was rejected by the Labour
Court by holding that no relationship of master and servant is
established. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Labour
Court, the petitioner preferred Appeal (IC) No.29 of 2007,
whereby the Industrial
Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal by awarding
Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement. Hence,
present petition.
Mr.M.M. Barot, learned advocate
for the petitioner, has submitted that the Industrial
Tribunal ought to have considered the main prayer of the
Appeal which was in respect of reinstatement; that the Industrial
Tribunal has misread the decision of the Apex Court reported
in 2009(4) LLJ 681 in respect of reinstatement and thereby, prayed
that present petition may be allowed.
Having
considered the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the
petitioner and averments made in the petition as well as documentary
evidence produced on
record, it transpires that the petitioner has given his resignation
to the contractor of the respondent herein and has left the
respondent-Company after availing of all the legitimate rights.
Further, it has been rightly held by the Industrial
Tribunal that the
dispute is legal and it is held that the respondent has illegally
terminated the petitioner from service. The Tribunal has relying
upon the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ashokkumar
Sharma v. Oberoi Flight Services, reported in 2009(IV)
LLJ 732, rightly
appreciated that if the services of workman is found to be
terminated illegally, it does not make him entitled to be reinstated
in service and it is held that in lieu of reinstatement, it should
be ordered to grant appropriate compensation. Further, the Tribunal
has rightly relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case
of Munshising Balvantsing Kushwah v. District
Panchayat, Jaura, reported in 2009(IV) LLJ 681, whereby
it is held that there is no rule that when there is a breach of
provision of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in
each case the prayer for reinstatement is required to be granted.
Thus, the Tribunal after taking into consideration the pros and cons
of the matter as well as in light of the aforesaid decisions, has
granted a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
only) to the petitioner in lieu of his prayer for reinstatement.
In
view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the
reasons assigned by the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the view
taken by the Industrial
Tribunal
is just and proper. The Industrial
Tribunal
has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at the
conclusion. I do not find any illegality much less any perversity in
the findings recorded by the Industrial
Tribunal.
No case is made out to interfere with the findings recorded by the
Industrial
Tribunal.
Hence, present petition deserves to be dismissed.
For
the foregoing reasons, present petition fails and is, accordingly,
dismissed in limine.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top