Dakor Municipality vs Bhavin Rajnikant Bhatt & 1 Other(S)

A.J.Desai, J

1.0. By way of the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant- original petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.10.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.7630 of 2014, by which, the learned Single Judge has upheld the judgment and award dated 23.08.2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No.383 of 2001, by which, the appellant- Municipality was directed to reinstate respondent workman on his original post with continuity of service with 20% back wages.

2.0. The short facts arise in this appeal are as under:

2.1. That the respondent workman was serving as a daily wager from 2000 to 2001 i.e. about one year and two months and was relieved from the service on account of abolition of octroi. Therefore, respondent workman raised industrial dispute, which came to be referred to the Labour Court and same came to be numbered as Reference (LCN) No.383 of 2001. The Labour Court considering the rival submissions made by the respective parties and record available on the file, allowed the Reference filed by the respondent workman, as stated above. The said judgment and award was challenged by the present appellant-Municipality by way of captioned writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge after considering the various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court. Hence, present appeal.

3.0. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.02.20215 admitted the present appeal and stayed the order of the Labour Court qua continuity and backwages and observed that reinstatement shall be granted within a period of four weeks from today.

4.0. Mr. Sanchela, learned advocate for the appellant-Municipality would submit that as per the order passed by the learned Labour Court and confirmed by the learned Single Judge, respondent workman has already been reinstated immediately i.e. in the year 2013 itself and is continued in service. Mr. Sanchela however would submit that the Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge ought not to have awarded 20% backwages since the service of the respondent workman was discontinued due to closure of octroi department where the respondent workman was working. He, therefore, would submit that order of backwages to the extent of 20% be quashed and set aside.

5.0. On the other hand, Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent workman has supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and would submit that there is no need to interfere with the orders passed by the Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge. He would submit that when it is established that the appellant Municipality has committed breach of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, more particularly, Section 25 F of the Act, the result would be of reinstatement with full backwages , however the Labour Court has granted only 20% backwages, which does not call for any interference and particularly when learned Single Judge has also upheld the findings of the Labour Court.

5.1. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja vs. Kutchh District Panchayat rendered in Civil Appeal No.6890 of 202 dated 23.09.2022, Mr. Mishra would submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforesaid decision has held that if it is established that there is breach of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, person is required to be reinstated in service with backwages. He would further submit that 20% backwages if calculated for the period in question would hardly come to around Rs.50,000/- and on this ground also, this Court may not interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

6.0. We have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court as well as judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. We are in complete agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge confirming the award passed by the Labour Court since the respondent workman is reinstated way back in the year 2013 in compliance with the order passed by the Labour Court. We are also in complete agreement with the observations made by the Labour Court awarding 20% back wages in view of latest decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja (supra) as well as in view of the fact that amount of backwages comes to only Rs.50,000/-. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Being the Reference Case an old one, appellant is hereby directed to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/-within a period of Eight Weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the respondent workman would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% (six percent) from the date of decision of reference case till the amount is actually paid. Direct service is permitted to both the parties.

In view of dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, Miscellaneous Civil Application No.1045 of 2015 also stands disposed of.