IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10841 of 2012 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ================================================================
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 ?
================================================================ NARENDRA YASHVANT KHADSHE Petitioner(s) Versus PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT NO.1 & 1 Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance:
MR DS VASAVADA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR PARITOSH CALLA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR.VARUN K.PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 26/12/2012 ORAL JUDGEMNT
1. Rule. Mr. Paritosh Calla, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 1 and Mr. Varun Patel, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 2 waive service of notice of Rule. With the consent of parties, matter is taken up for final hearing today.
2. The present petition is filed challenging the award dated 02.06.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference (LCB) No. 427 of 2001 whereby the labour court partly allowing the reference directed lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,75,000/- to be paid to the petitioner in lieu of the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement and backwages.
3. It is the case of the petitioner who was working as operator that the respondent company terminated him from service without following due procedure of law. The petitioner, therefore, filed reference before the Labour Court. The Labour Court after hearing the petitioner passed the aforesaid award of lumpsum compensation. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is preferred.
4. Mr. Vasavada, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court ought to have held that when the charge is not proved against the petitioner, the only logical and consequential order could be the order of reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages.
4.1 Mr. Vasavada has relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:
(i) Amar Chakravarty and Others vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. reported in 2011-I-LLJ-251 (SC);
(ii) Munna Lal vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2010-I-LLJ-11 (SC);
(iii) Jasbir Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank and Others reported in 2007-I-LLJ-209(SC).
5. Mr Varun Patel, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 2 supported the award passed by the Labour Court and submitted that in view of the reasonings adopted by the Labour Court which are just and proper, no interference is called for in the matter. He has relied upon decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and Others reported in (2010) 6 SCC 773 as well as A.K. Dass vs. National Federation of Cooperative Sugar Factories Ltd. And Others reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 520.
6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the records of the case, this Court does not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Labour Court in the reference and the impugned award passed therein. The Labour Court in para 15 of the impugned award observed that the departmental inquiry was found to be perverse and the management failed to prove the charges against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt but considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner which shows that the respondent company lost faith and confidence in the petitioner, the Labour Court thought it fit to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages. The Labour Court observed therein that in order to have a deterrent effect on the petitioner as well as similarly situated employees, the appropriate course of action would be to grant lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages.
7. It is required to be noted that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if the termination is found to be illegal or in contravention of the prescribed procedure and monetary compensation in cases of such nature may be appropriate. The said view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal (supra).
7.1 In the case of A.K. Dass (supra), the Apex Court has observed that it is well settled that if it is a case of loss of confidence the discretion is vested in the Court to refuse reinstatement. Even in the present case even if the termination of the petitioner is quashed and set aside on the ground that the allegations are not established, that would be a factor which would weigh with the court but the respondent company would not have confidence in the person.
8. The decision relied by learned advocate for the petitioner shall not be applicable on the facts of the present case as the Labour Court in the present case has not outrightly rejected the reference but instead granted lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages considering the peculiar facts of the present case.
9. However, considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (supra), this Court does not find any reason for interfering with the award passed by the Labour Court. This court is not inclined to disturb the award passed by the Labour Court. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.
divya (K.S.JHAVERI, J.)