Ashima Syntex Private Ltd. and Another vs Dashrathbhai M. Doshi

M.R. Shah, J.—By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned award dated 2.2.1998 passed by the Labour Court, Kalol passed in Reference (LCK) No. 119 of 1989, by which the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kalol has passed an order directing the petitioners to reinstate the respondent with full back wages from the date of alleged termination till reinstatement.

It appears that respondent was serving as a Watchman with the petitioner No. 1 and it was the specific case on behalf of respondent that his services came to be terminated and/or he came to be relieved w.e.f. 31.12.1988 without giving any notice and/or notice pay and/or retrenchment compensation and/or without holding any departmental inquiry. It appears that the said dispute was referred to Labour Court, Kalol, which was numbered as Reference (LCK) No. 119 of 1989. It was the specific case on behalf of the petitioner that it was the respondent who proceeded on leave and thereafter he did not resume the duty. It was also specific case on behalf of the petitioner that as such petitioner No. 1 company came to be closed w.e.f. 9.11.1995 and even the license also came to be surrendered. The Labour Court, Kalol by impugned judgment and award allowed the said Reference by directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with full back wages.

Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, it appears that the company is closed since 9.11.1995 and even ssthe license is also surrendered long back. However, it is the case of the respondent that the factory premises has been leased and/or was rented or company is being run. For the aforesaid there is no evidence on record. Considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Shri Naik, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that without further entering into the larger question, the petitioners are ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the respondent in lieu of reinstatement and back wages as, even if the petition is dismissed, the same would be a paper decree. It is submitted that to put an end to the litigation, petitioners are ready and willing to pay the aforesaid amount towards full and final settlement and in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. Shri Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that as his client has some reservation, he is not agreeable to the same.

However, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and as when company is already closed since 1995-96 and this Court is of the opinion that considering the fact that even according to the respondent he worked as Watchman for less than five years, the proposal made by Shri Naik, learned advocate for the petitioners to pay sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- towards full and final settlement by way of compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, seems to be reasonable and fair. It also appears that despite the fact that Company is already closed since 1995-96, respondent is being paid wages u/s 17B since 2007 and he has been paid idle wages also.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, petition succeed in part and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court dated 2.2.1998 passed by the Labour Court, Kalol passed in Reference (LCK) No. 119 of 1989 is modified to the extent by which the petitioners are directed to pay sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the respondent in lieu of the reinstatement and back wages within a period of six weeks from today, failing which the same shall accrue interest at the rate of 9%. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs.