Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/16791/2010 2/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16791 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
=================================================
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 ?
=================================================
SURESHBHAI
GOVINDBHAI KHOKHARI - Petitioner
Versus
PRESIDENT
/ CHIEF OFFICER - Respondent
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
HM PRACHCHHAK for Petitioner:
MR MURALI N DEVNANI for Respondent :
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 07/02/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Rule.
Mr. Devnani, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule. Rule
is fixed forthwith at the request of learned advocates for the
parties.
The
petitioner-second party workman in Reference (LCJ) No. 145 of 2000
has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order and award passed by the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Junagadh, camp at Porbandar, in so
far as it did not order reinstatement and in lieu thereof granted
lump sum amount that too without taking into consideration an
appropriate factors for arriving at appropriate lump sum payment.
This
Court (Coram: K.A. Puj, J.) on 30/12/2010 after hearing learned
advocate for the petitioner passed the following order :
Notice
for final disposal returnable on 18.01.2011
The
facts in brief deserve to be set out as under.
The
petitioner was constrained to raise industrial dispute as despite
his long service from 1/6/1996 and prior to his earlier services
rendered with the respondent, his services were terminated with
effect from 15/5/2000 without following the mandatory provisions of
law namely Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said dispute was
referred to the Competent Court, wherein, in was marked as Reference
(LCJ) No. 145 of 2000, which came to be partly allowed, as stated
hereinabove, vide order dated 10/11/2010. Having been aggrieved and
dissatisfied with said order, present petition is preferred, which
has now been confined only to the quantum of compensation awarded
in lieu of reinstatement and any other claim.
Shri
Prachchhak, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended
that Rs.13,000/- with cost of reference of Rs.1,000/- is too meager
amount to be awarded keeping in mind the actual services rendered by
the petitioner before his termination is effected. He submitted that
in a given case, Supreme Court has awarded Rs.40,000/- even if the
workman had not completed more than two to three years of service.
However, he submitted that the appropriate enhancement of the
compensation be ordered by the Court.
Shri
Devnani, learned advocate appearing for the respondent relied upon
unreported decision of this Court in case of BHURABHAI
VEJABHAI AGATH VS. PRESIDENT/CHIEF OFFICER dated
23.12.2010 and contended that in such a case, the compensation is
awarded keeping in mind all factors and this Court therefore, is of
the view that Rs.13,000/- as compensation is too meager then the
Court may enhance the same but not more than Rs.40,000/- in any
case.
This
Court has heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the
order of this Court relied upon by Shri Devnani in support of his
submission. The fact remains to be noted that the workman had in
fact put in more than 4 years service with respondent and his
services came to be terminated unceremoniously without following due
process of law. However, in the submission of learned advocate for
the petitioner, the workman had in fact earlier also rendered
services, which otherwise could be considered to have been rendered
from 1981, instead of 1996. In view of the submission made by
advocate for respective parties, this Court is of the view that
amount of Rs.13,000/- is in fact an amount, which cannot said to be
an amount adequate enough to meet with the ends of justice. The
amount of compensation, is therefore, required to be enhanced
accordingly. In my view, instead of Rs.13,000/- if the workman is
ordered to be paid lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/-, then, the ends of
justice would be met appropriately. The award impugned is therefore
modified and now as per the modified award, the workman is entitled
to receive Rs.40,000/- towards all his claims raised. The amount of
Rs.40,000/- plus Rs.1000/- towards cost, which has been awarded by
the Reference Court, be paid within four weeks from the date of
receipt of writ of this Court. In case if the said amount is not
paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of writ, then, the
amount thereafter be paid with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and
it would be open to the workman to move this Court for appropriate
relief for compliance with this order. Petition is allowed to the
aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute. No costs.
[S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.]
/vgn
Top