(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
1. The appellant - State of Gujarat is aggrieved by an order passed in Special Civil Application No. 7600 of 2001 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Said petition was preferred by the present appellant to challenge the award passed by the Labour Court, Kalol in Reference (LCK) No. 239/87 dated 3.8.2000. Said reference was filed by the workman to challenge his termination on various grounds including violation of the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court, Kalol found substance in the case of the workman, therefore, by award impugned in the petition, directed reinstatement of the workman in service on his original post with 30 per cent back wages. During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Single Judge, the workman had been receiving wages under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. The workman was a watchman and the charges were that he was found sleeping while on duty on various occasions and lastly when portable water pump worth Rs.10435.00 came to be stolen while he was on duty.
3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions made before him, made following observations in para 3,4 and 5:
"3. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, I find that there is no dispute raised by the workman regarding the instance of negligence pointed out by the employer. The fact that he was given memo and warning as he was found sleeping on duty is not seriously in dispute. His extended absence in duty is also not in dispute. The fact that while he was in duty one portable water pump set worth Rs. 10,000/- was stolen is also not in dispute.
4. Under the circumstances, though I find that order of termination could not have been passed without holding inquiry, in facts of the case, reinstatement with back-wages, would not be an appropriate order to pass. I cannot lose sight of the fact that respondent was engaged as a watchman. When the watchman is found to be negligent in duties, that he is found sleeping during work hours and due to which Government property also gets stolen right under his nose, reinstating him would not be in the interest of justice. The workman could have taken stand of loss of confidence, then the matter would have stood on different footing. However, I have not gone in this direction since no such case is put-forth by the workman . Nevertheless, considering the facts of this case, it would be highly improper to reinstate the workman on the original position.
5. Under the circumstances, appropriate compensation in view of reinstatement and back-wages would meet with the ends of justice. During the pendency of the petition, workman would have been granted Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. In addition to such payments, he shall be paid sum of Rs. 75,000/- by the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement with back-wages. Such payment be made within for weeks from today. "
4. Ms.
Monali Bhatt, learned AGP for the appellant State of Gujarat has submitted that the learned Single Judge has awarded compensation of Rs.75000.00 which is unduly harsh and on higher side. It is more than 30 per cent of the back wages awarded by the Labour Court. She also submitted that no detailed reasons are given for computation of the amount of Rs.75000.00 as compensation.
5. We have heard the learned AGP Ms. Bhatt for the appellant and having gone through the papers, we find that the order impugned in this appeal does not call for any interference for the reason that the award of the labour court was not found to be fit for interference by the learned Single Judge.It was also considered that the workman was a watchman who was found to be sleeping while on duty which resulted into commission of theft of the property of the Government. The learned Single Judge, therefore, struck balance by awarding compensation in lieu of back wages and reinstatement.
6. The amount of compensation determined by the learned Single Judge cannot be considered as arbitrary which would call for interference of this Court in exercise of the intra-court appellate jurisdiction. It may be that the amount of Rs.75000.00 would be more than 30 per cent of the back wages as awarded by the labour court but it is also tobe kept bin mind that the amount fixed by the learned Single Judge is a compensation in lieu of reinstatement in the first instance and also in lieu of back wages in the second instance and, therefore, even if the details of computation of the amount is not indicated, it does not sound to us to be excessive. The learned Single Judge has exercised his judicial discretion and when it is found to be not suffering from any arbitrariness, no interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is required. Appeal must fail and is dismissed accordingly.
7. Civil Application No. 13308 of 2011 stands disposed of accordingly.
(A.L.
Dave,J.) (C.L.
Soni,J.) an vyas Top