AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J
In view of the fact that an identical issue is involved in both the petitions, the petitions are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
Present petitions are filed by the petitioner Corporation under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) challenging the impugned awards dated 18.6.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.491 of 2011 and Reference (LCA) No. 490 of 2011 respectively, whereby the Labour Court has partly allowed the reference and granted reinstatement with continuity of service without backwages to both the respondents.
Brief facts giving rise to the present petitions are as under :
3.1 That, the respondent-workmen were working as driver as daily wager offering services badli worker as driver, requiring them to remain present and report to the duties and given work as per the seniority. That, the tenure was purely depending on the exigency and of availability of work, on the essential services of the transportation in the city of Ahmedabad, rather even from the records, the respondent-workmen did not remain present and reported for the duties. That, the respondent-workmen were engaged in the year 1997 and rendered services as a daily-wage driver as under :
Year
No. of days worked by Hareshkumar Shankarlal Trivedi
No. of days worked by Jayantibhai Merubhai Patel
1997
47½
76
1998
262
98
1999
276
151
2000
243
208
2001
268
90
2002
16
-
3.2 That in the year 2002, the petitioner institution was under massive crunch and financial crisis and there was no work available and even the regular employees appointed after due process of law could not be paid salary, despite remaining idle. That, under the circumstance, persons working as badli workers/daily wagers were discharged/relieved, in view of non-availability of work and against the actions of not giving work lead to filing of several litigation. That, upon partial availability of work, efforts were made to call back and given fresh appointment, during which, the respondent-workmen, worked only intermittently as under :
Year
No. of days worked by Hareshkumar Shankarlal Trivedi
No. of days worked by Jayantibhai Merubhai Patel
2006
44
15
2007
99
20
2008
119
-
2009
39
-
2010
27
-
3.3 That, the respondent-workmen remained continuously absent from 13.02.2007 onwards, for which requests were made orally and also specific repeated notices were issued for requisition, however, the respondent-workmen did not choose to respond or even resume work, despite of receiving the acknowledgment to resume duties. That, the authority was further compelled to engage services from the retired drivers of the institution. Furthermore, the respondent-workmen had not even completed 240 days of service and had not reported for work, for which necessary actions were taken on 10.06.2010. That, being aggrieved and dissatisfied against the action, the respondent-workmen raised industrial dispute by way of filing reference as aforesaid, wherein, the Labour Court partly allowed the reference and granted reinstatement with continuity of service without backwages to both the respondents vide its awards dated 18.6.2019
Being aggrieved by the above awards passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has preferred present petitions.
Heard Mr. Deep D. Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Saurabh Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workmen and learned AGPs Ms. Sweety Samara and Ms. Agneya Mankad, appearing for the respondent-State Authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the facts narrated in the memo of petition and submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court are bad in law and de hors the provisions of law. He submitted that both the respondents were not at all employed as regular and permanent drivers in establishment of the Corporation. He has submitted that both the respondents were offered work as daily wage drivers between 1996 to 2002 depending upon the availability of work and funds and therefore, had no right of continuity in service. He has submitted that labour Court has erred in ordering for reinstatement though there was a case of abandonment of service and there was no breach of the provisions of Section 25F, G and H of the I.D. Act. Over-and-above, the grounds enumerated in the memo of petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is illegal, unjust and improper and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has objected the petition and submitted that the Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned awards. He has submitted that the impugned awards passed by the Labour Court are in consonance with the provisions of law. He has submitted that the impugned awards are passed by the Labour Court after considering the facts of the case and the settled legal principles.
Considering the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, and considering the fact that both the respondents had rendered 14/11 years services as 'driver' with the petitioner Corporation and also considering the fact that this Court in case of similarly situated employees has granted lumpsum compensation vide order dated 10.12.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6931 of 2020 with Special Civil Application No. 6933 of 2020, it is appropriate to grant lump sum compensation in favour of both the respondents. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited Versus Suresh S/o Dadarao Gadge reported in (2015) 4 SCC 542 and the oral order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023 and allied appeals more particularly para – 10 and the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1091 of 2023 and allied appeals more particularly paras – 5 and 6, this Court is of the opinion that if lump sum compensation in favour of both the respondents is awarded, the interest of justice would be subserved.
The relevant para – 10 of the oral order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023 and allied appeals reads thus:-
“10. Having come to the conclusion that the lump sum compensation would be appropriate remedy for the families of the deceased workmen, the other aspects which comes for consideration is quantum of lump sum compensation. Though learned advocate Mr. Bhatt has contended that there was delay in preferring the complaint and the subsequent reference, it can be observed from the pleadings that the averments with regard to delay and laches in preferring the reference were not made before the labour court as well as the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the argument of learned advocate Mr. Bhatt with regard to delay and laches in preferring reference cannot be countenanced and what needs to be seen is that almost all the workmen have put in 16-20 years of service for the respondent and their services were terminated without following due procedure of law. Therefore, the families of the deceased workmen needs to be compensated proportionally as to the number of years of service put in by them. However, in order to balance the equation, we have considered to give effect of delay in preferring the reference while enhancing the amount of compensation. Thus, while calculating the number of years of services, we proposed to deduct the number of years service for which there is delay in preferring reference. After deduction of such number of service, we propose to give compensation in the following tabular form:
Sr.No.
Total no. of years for lump sum compensation
Amount of lump sum compensation
1
5 to 10 years
Rs.3.00 lacs
2
10-15 years
Rs.5.00 lacs
3
15-20 years
Rs.7.5 lacs
The relevant paras 5 and 6 of the oral order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1091 of 2023 and allied appeals reads thus:-
“5. Therefore, looking to the gap which intervened between the date of termination and the date of granting reinstatement, the approach of the learned Single Judge granting lump sum compensation cannot be faulted with.
Looking to the various aspects and factors which are considered above, like the nature of employment, time gap intervened, length of service, the compensation awarded to the tune could not be said to be unreasonable. Therefore, Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the Municipality on the question of amount of compensation as well as appeals preferred by the workmen seeking reinstatement are liable to be dismissed. However, in one of the matters being Letters Patent Appeal No. 701 of 2023 in Special Civil Application No. 18334 of 2021 in the case of workman being Koli Vairaginiben Ramkumar, we observe that the compensation given by the learned Single Judge is to the tune of Rs.6,25,000/- for 11 years of service. It can be observed from the order passed by the learned Single Judge that such amount is proportionally different from the other set of amounts which are given as compensation. However, for the identical years of work i.e. 11 years of service, the other workmen are granted an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- as lump sum compensation. Thus, we are inclined to modify the amount of lump sum compensation in Letters Patent Appeal No. 701 of 2023 to the tune of Rs.3,25,000/- from Rs.6,25,000/- . Hence, Letters Patent Appeal No. 701 of 2023 is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent, whereas, all the other Letters Patent Appeals stand dismissed as no ground is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.”
Now, considering the materials placed on record and the peculiar facts of the case as well as the tenure of services of both the respondents, it would be just and proper to pay lump sum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to EACH of the respondent, which will serve the ends of justice.
In view of the above, both the petitions are partly allowed. The impugned awards dated 18.6.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 491 of 2011 and Reference (LCA) No. 490 of 2011 respectively are modified accordingly. An amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as lump sum compensation shall be paid to EACH OF the respondent by the employer, after proper verification of the identity and bank details through RTGS/NEFT, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in both the petitions. There shall be no order as to costs.