Utkarsh Gas Service vs Viraji Dhanaji Parmar and Another

N.V. Anjaria, J.—Heard learned advocate Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay for the petitioner. The petitioner employer has, in the present petition, sought to challenge judgment and award of the Labour Court. By the impugned award dated 20th April, 2013 passed in Reference (LCA) 1405 of 2003, the Labour Court partially allowed the Reference of the respondent workman, awarding lump sum compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to him, and further Rs. 2500/- towards costs.

The respondent was employed by the petitioner as a delivery boy. He was doing the work of carrying and lifting gas cylinders, and delivering them at different places. According to his case, he was in service since 1.8.1983, and was getting monthly pay of Rs. 3350/-. It was employer''s case that the respondent was engaged on commission basis. The case was sought to be supported by producing agreement Mark 10/1 by the employer.

2.1 On the basis of facts, material and evidence on record, the Labour Court concluded that the employer''s case was not being established. The agreement Mark 10/1 produced did not contain any details of commission payable and hence nothing was indicated about the payment of commission. Furthermore, the said agreement was for the period of one year only. Thereafter, there was no agreement produced. The respondent worked for long 16 years. In other words, there was no evidence on the basis of which the employer''s case could be proved. It was not substantiated.

2.2 The workman''s case was that he was in service since 1983, and he produced the details of his service since 1.5.1986 by producing presence card. On that basis, the Labour Court took the services of the respondent to have been rendered from 1.5.86. It was further shown by the respondent that his monthly salary was Rs. 3200/-.

2.3 The Labour Court arrived at a finding from the evidence regarding respondent''s services with the petitioner that in terminating his services orally with effect from 10.06.2002, there was a breach of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The action of termination was held to be illegal.

Despite finding having been reached by the Labour Court that Sec. 25F was violated, since the workman had reached the age of superannuation, the question of his reinstatement in service was not to arise. A lump sum compensation of Rs. 75,000/- was therefore awarded by the labour court. In course of recording the findings, it was observed that because of continuous carrying and lifting the gas cylinders on the shoulder, the workman had suffered a permanent kind of pain on his shoulder.

3.1 In arriving at the amount of compensation, the Labour Court applied factors such as the period of service, the salary received, the nature of work, the age etc. These are the relevant considerations, which have gone into the decision making process of the labour court. The respondent put in 16 years of service. His nature of work was arduous as such. He was found to be getting Rs. 3200/- p.m. The finding of violation of section 25F was justified in view of the facts and evidence on record.

No case was made out calling for interference in the impugned judgment and award. It was proper and legal. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed.