Hotel Karnavati vs L H Of Late Narola Kalidas Ravabhai Sureshbhai Revabhai Narola

Aniruddha P. Mayee, J

The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the following reliefs:-

“14(A) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order to quash and set aside the impugned Award dated 07.02.2018 in Reference (LCA) No.232 of 2008 below Exh.28 passed by the Hon’ble Labour Court, Ahmedabad at Annexure-A to this Petition.

(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to stay the implementation and execution of the impugned Award dated 07.02.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.232 of 2008 below Exh.28 at Annexure-A to this Petition.”

Brief facts in the present case are that the deceased respondent workman was working with the petitioner on a monthly pay of Rs.1,600/-. Thereafter, on 11.4.1992 the Managing Director of the petitioner called the deceased respondent workman and pressurized him to give his resignation. The deceased respondent workman did not give his resignation. It is further the case of the deceased respondent workman that since the hotel was undergoing renovation, they were intermittently called for the work and thereafter the deceased respondent workman was told to inquire for work after the renovation is completed. That on 12.12.2007, the deceased respondent workman was informed by the Managing Director of the petitioner that he is free to take job anywhere else. Therefore, it is alleged by the deceased respondent workman that he was actually relieved orally from the work from 11.4.1992.

2.1 Aggrieved, the deceased respondent workman raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner who by letter dated 12.3.2008 has made a reference to the learned Labour Court No.2, Ahmedabad, which came to be registered as reference (LCA) No. 232 of 2008. The parties submitted to the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court. The deceased respondent workman filed his statement of claim. The petitioner herein has replied to the claim. The parties led evidence in support of their case. By the impugned judgment and award dated 7.2.2018, the learned Labour Court was pleased to partly allow the reference. Since the deceased respondent workman expired on 5.5.2015, it was held that the legal heirs of the deceased respondent workman are entitled to 50% of the pay along with retirement bonus, notice pay and other benefits as entitled from 11.4.1992 till 1.1.2000 when the petitioner establishment has closed down.

2.2 Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application.

Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner establishment had closed down from 1.1.2000. He submits that as per the case of the deceased respondent workman, he was terminated from 11. 4.1992. He further submits that a complaint came to be filed before the Conciliation Officer on 12.12.2007, i.e. after a period of 15 years. He submits that no dispute existed as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act. He submits that the claim of the deceased respondent workman ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay. He further submits that the closure of the petitioner establishment has not been disputed by the deceased respondent workman. He submits that it is the contention of the deceased respondent workman and also the statement in the cross-examination that he had approached the present petitioner for work intermittently from 11.4.1992 till 12.12.2007. He submits that once the petitioner establishment is closed down on 1.1.2000, there was no question of providing work to the deceased respondent workman and therefore also, the deceased respondent workman was not entitled for any relief. He submits that even otherwise, the contentions and the evidence brought on record by the petitioner have not been appreciated properly and not taken into consideration while passing the impugned judgment and award. He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment and award be set aside and the present Special Civil Application be allowed.

Per contra, Mr. K.R.Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the deceased respondent workman submits that it is not disputed by the petitioner company that the deceased respondent workman was working with them. He submits that once it is accepted that he was working with the petitioner company, then the deceased respondent workman is also entitled to the benefits which were paid to other employees of the petitioner company by way of out of Court settlement which came to be recorded in Letters Patent Appeal No.1130 of 2008 by the Division Bench of this Court. He, therefore, submits that the deceased respondent workman was first pressurized to give his resignation by the Managing Director of the petitioner company and thereafter was treated as terminated by the petitioner. He submits that this was done only with a view to deny the benefits of compensation since the petitioner wanted to close down the establishment. He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment and award granting benefits to the deceased respondent workman is just and proper and the same be upheld.

Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents on record.

It is not disputed that the establishment of the petitioner company has closed down from 1.1.2000. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner company has entered into out of Court settlement with 58 other employees granting them benefits which came to be recorded in the order passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1130 of 2008.

In the present case, the learned Labour Court, after considering the contentions of the parties and perusing the evidence brought on record by the parties has come to the conclusion that there was no reason not to extend the benefit of settlement which was arrived at between the petitioner and 58 other employees to be made available to the deceased respondent workman herein.

In the present case, the petitioner company has not disputed that the deceased respondent workman was working with them. In respect of the issue of delay in filing the reference, it is seen from the record that the deceased respondent workman has averred that he was pressurized to put in his resignation on 11. 4.1992 and thereafter told to come back for work till the renovation is over. Further, the deceased respondent workman had also given an application for condonation of delay in raising the dispute before the Conciliation Officer which came to be considered and thereafter the reference came to be made to the learned Labour Court. No evidence has been brought to the notice of this Court which requires any interference in the impugned judgment and award. There is nothing on record to suggest that the deceased respondent workman was terminated in accordance with law.

In the opinion of this Court, the benefits granted in terms of the out of Court settlement arrived at between the petitioner and other 58 employees and which has been made available to the deceased respondent workman by the impugned judgment and award is just and proper. No case for interference is made out. The present Special Civil Application is devoid of merits and is dismissed accordingly. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.