Shinor Taluka Panchayat vs Manjulaben Suryabhai Vasava & Ors

Hemant M. Prachchhak, J

RULE returnable forthwith. Learned counsel Mr. Robin Prasad, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondents.

Present petition is filed by the petitioner-Panchayat under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) challenging the judgment and award dated 18.07.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vadodara (hereinafter be referred to as “the Labour Court”) in Reference (LCV) No. 437 of 2011, whereby, the learned Judge has partly allowed the Reference filed by the respondent-workman and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with 35% back wages; as well as the order dated 05.07.2023, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vadodara in Recovery Application No. 186 of 2020, whereby, the learned Judge has partly allowed the recovery application directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 3,50,806/- alongwith 6% interest to the legal heirs of the deceased respondent-workman, from the date of filing of the recovery application and also awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards cost.

Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the deceased respondent-workman was appointed as watchmen/Mali with effect from 01.01.1988 with the petitioner-Panchayat and he was terminated in the year of 1994 and therefore, the respondent-workman filed Reference No. 75 of 1995, which was allowed on 01.03.1999, pursuant to which, the respondent-workman was reinstated in the service. Thereafter, again the respondent-workman was terminated from the service in the year 2011 and therefore, he filed another Reference No. 437 of 2011, which was came to be allowed by the Labour Court vide order dared 18.07.2017 and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with 35% back wages. That, the award came into operation in the year of 2018, meanwhile, the original workman expired on 08.02.2020 and therefore, the respondents, being the legal representative and heirs of the deceased workman, filed recovery application which was came to be allowed by the Labour Court vide order dated 05.07.2023 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 3,50,806/- alongwith 6% interest to the legal heirs of the deceased respondent-workman, from the date of filing of the recovery application and also awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards cost.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 18.07.2017 and the order dated 05.07.2023 passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

Heard Ms. Sejal Mandavia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Panchayat and Mr. Robin Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the deceased respondent-workman.

Learned counsel Ms. Mandavia has submitted that the impugned judgment and award as well as the order passed by the Labour Court are illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on record and the provisions of the Act and therefore, the same are required to be quashed and set aside. She has submitted that the father of the respondents was appointed by the petitioner-Panchayat by passing the resolution and he was not appointed after following the selection process and he was not a permanent daily wager also and therefore, he had no right to post and he was not entitled to get the protection under the provisions of the Act. She has submitted that in the year of 1989 resolution No. 17 was passed, in which, President of the petitioner-Panchayat had resolved that the deceased workmen required to be given a work of Mali and Rs. 450 was decided as fix salary and the salary of the workman required to be given from own fund of the Taluka Panchayat. She has further submitted that in the year of 2011, the workman had broken the lock of the office of the President of Taluka Panchayat and he had misbehaved with the then Taluka Development Officer and other officers therefore, the Taluka Panchayat had passed the resolution No. 16 to terminate the service of development and ultimately, the office order was passed terminating the service of the workman on 15.10.2011, which was challenged by filing the aforesaid Reference before the Labour Court. She has submitted that the concerned lawyer had not informed anything to the office of the petitioner and therefore, the exparte award was passed against the petitioner and thereafter, the recovery application was filed and as per the instructions of the lawyer of the petitioner, the affidavit of evidence was filed on behalf of the petitioner but again, could not know anything about the proceedings of recovery application, meanwhile, the lawyer had expired and the officers keep changing and therefore, nobody could give proper attention to the legal proceedings. She has submitted that when the application for issuing the recovery certificate was received by the petitioner, at that point of time, the petitioner-Panchayat came to know about all the proceedings and thereafter, the present petition has been filed. Hence, there is some delay in challenging the impugn orders. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of appeal, learned counsel Ms. Mandavia has urged that the impugned award as well as the order passed in recovery application are required to be quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed.

As against that, learned counsel Mr. Robin Prasad, appearing for the respondent-workman, has opposed the present petition and submitted that there is no any infirmity or any illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court as well as the order passed in recovery application and therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the present petition. Learned counsel Mr. Prasad has referred and relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023 and other allied matters, more particularly the observations made in paras-7, 10 and 11 and urged that appropriate orders be passed.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court. Considering the submissions canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, it appears that the Labour Court has rightly appreciated the evidence while coming to the conclusion and without there being any rebuttal, on the other hand, the Labour Court has awarded the aforementioned relief. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited Versus Suresh S/o Dadarao Gadge reported in (2015) 4 SCC 542 and the oral order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023 and allied appeals more particularly para – 10 and the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1091 of 2023 and allied appeals more particularly paras – 5 and 6, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved, if lump sump compensation is awarded in favour of the workman.

8.1 The relevant para – 10 of the oral order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023 and allied appeals reads thus:-

“10. Having come to the conclusion that the lump sum compensation would be appropriate remedy for the families of the deceased workmen, the other aspects which comes for consideration is quantum of lump sum compensation. Though learned advocate Mr. Bhatt has contended that there was delay in preferring the complaint and the subsequent reference, it can be observed from the pleadings that the averments with regard to delay and laches in preferring the reference were not made before the labour court as well as the learned Single Judge.

Therefore, the argument of learned advocate Mr. Bhatt with regard to delay and laches in preferring reference cannot be countenanced and what needs to be seen is that almost all the workmen have put in 16-20 years of service for the respondent and their services were terminated without following due procedure of law. Therefore, the families of the deceased workmen needs to be compensated proportionally as to the number of years of service put in by them. However, in order to balance the equation, we have considered to give effect of delay in preferring the reference while enhancing the amount of compensation. Thus, while calculating the number of years of services, we proposed to deduct the number of years service for which there is delay in preferring reference. After deduction of such number of service, we propose to give compensation in the following tabular form:

Sr.No.

Total no. of years for lump sum compensation

Amount of lump sum compensation

1

5 to 10 years

Rs.3.00 lacs

2

10-15 years

Rs.5.00 lacs

3

15-20 years

Rs.7.5 lacs

8.2 The relevant paras 5 and 6 of the oral order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1091 of 2023 and allied appeals reads thus:-

“5. Therefore, looking to the gap which intervened between the date of termination and the date of granting reinstatement, the approach of the learned Single Judge granting lump sum compensation cannot be faulted with.

Looking to the various aspects and factors which are considered above, like the nature of employment, time gap intervened, length of service, the compensation awarded to the tune could not be said to be unreasonable. Therefore, Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the Municipality on the question of amount of compensation as well as appeals preferred by the workmen seeking reinstatement are liable to be dismissed. However, in one of the matters being Letters Patent Appeal No. 701 of 2023 in Special Civil Application No. 18334 of 2021 in the case of workman being Koli Vairaginiben Ramkumar, we observe that the compensation given by the learned Single Judge is to the tune of Rs.6,25,000/- for 11 years of service. It can be observed from the order passed by the learned Single Judge that such amount is proportionally different from the other set of amounts which are given as compensation. However, for the identical years of work i.e. 11 years of service, the other workmen are granted an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- as lump sum compensation. Thus, we are inclined to modify the amount of lump sum compensation in Letters Patent Appeal No. 701 of 2023 to the tune of Rs.3,25,000/- from Rs.6,25,000/- . Hence, Letters Patent Appeal No. 701 of 2023 is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent, whereas, all the other Letters Patent Appeals stand dismissed as no ground is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.”

Now, considering the materials placed on record and the peculiar facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that considering the tenure of 6 years’ service, illegal appointment, etc., it will be in the fitness of things if, the award passed by the Labour Court is suitably modified in light of the aforestated position of Law by granting lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of all the dues of the employee.

In view of above, present petition is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 18.07.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference (LCV) No. 437 of 2011 is hereby modified accordingly. An amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as lump sum compensation shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased respondent-workman by the petitioner-Panchayat, after proper verification of the identity and bank details through RTGS/NEFT, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this Order, which shall be disbursed in equal proportion amognst the legal heirs of the deceased workman. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.

10.1 The amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the petitioner-Panchayat before the Registry of this Court in compliance of the order dated 08.05.2024 passed by this Court, shall be refunded to the petitioner, after proper verification.