Allowed

Bhuvaladi Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited v. Patel Yogeshkumar Ravjibhai

Gujarat HC9 Aug 2005SCA/11228/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant cooperative society challenged a Labour Court award directing reinstatement and backwages for workman terminated without following Section 25(F) procedure despite shop closure. High Court modified award substituting reinstatement with Rs. 35,000 lump sum compensation.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to be paid Rs. 35,000 in all in lieu of reinstatement, backwages, and entire claim as full and final settlement. Petitioner to pay Rs. 1,000 costs.

Bhuvaladi Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Gujarat HC (2005)

¶1

1/4

¶2

JUDGMENT

¶3

SCA/11228/2004

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶5

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11228 of 2004

¶6

For Approval and Signature:

¶7

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

¶8

==============================================================

¶9

1^{Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed} to see the judgment ?

¶10

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶11

3^{Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy} of the judgment ? Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶12

5^{Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge} ?

¶13

============================================================== BHUVALADI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LIMITED - Petitioner(s)

¶14

Versus

¶15

PATEL YOGESHKUMAR RAVJIBHAI - Respondent(s)

¶16

==============================================================

¶17

Appearance :

¶18

MR JV MEHTAfor Petitioner No(s).: 1.
MR KISHOR M PAULfor Respondent No(s).: 1.

¶19

==================================================================

¶20

CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

¶21

Date : 09/08/2005

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Rule. Shri Kishor M. Paul, learned advocate
waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent. With
the consent of the learned advocates appearing for
the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing
today.

¶24

SCA/11228/20042/4JUDGMENT

¶25

2.In this petition under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner Cooperative
Society has challenged the legality and validity of
the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court,
Ahmedabad, dated 3.10.2003 in Reference (LCA) No.
1071 of 1993 in partly allowing the said Reference
directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent
workman with continuity of service and 25 per cent of
backwages.

¶26

3.The petitioner society was running fairprice
shop where the respondent workman was serving as a
part-time employee. The respondent workman raised an
industrialdisputechallenginghisalleged
termination with effect from 1.5.1993 alleging that
the same was in breach of provision of Section of
25(F) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [“the I.D.
Act” for short] which was referred to the Labour
Court, Ahmedabad for adjudication being Reference
(LCA) No. 1071/1993. The said Reference was opposed
by the petitioner by submitting that the fair-price
shop itself has been closed, due to less workload the
staff strength was reduced based on the principle
“last-cum-first-go”. However, considering the fact
that before retrenching the respondent the procedure
as required under Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act was
not followed the action was in breach of such
provision, by judgment and award dated 3.10.2003 the
Labour Court partly allowed the said Reference
directing to reinstate the respondent workman but

¶27

SCA/11228/20043/4

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

with 25% of the backwages. Feeling aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated
3.10.2003 of the Labour Court in Reference (LCA) No.
1071/1993, the petitioner-society has preferred the
present Special Civil Application under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

4.Shri J.V. Mehta, learned advocate appearing
for the petitioner has submitted that when the
fairprice shop itself was closed which fact was
pointed out to the Labour Court the Labour Court was
not justified in passing the order of reinstatement
and to pay 25% of the backwages to the respondent
workman. It is undisputed that before terminating
the services of the respondent and/or before
retrenching him no procedure as required to be
followed under Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act was
followed and therefore the finding of the Labour
Court is not required to be interfered with. However
considering the fact that the fairprice shop where
the respondent workman was serving as Billing Clerk
is closed since long there is no question of
reinstatement of the respondent workman now. Shri
Kishor M. Paul, learned advocate appearing for the
respondent workman has submitted that the respondent
workman is ready and willing to accept a lumpsum
compensation in lieu of reinstatement which may be
quantified at Rs. 35,000.

¶31

SCA/11228/20044/4JUDGMENT

¶32

learned advocate, Shri Paul, appearing on behalf of
the respondent, the judgment and award passed by the
Labour Court, Ahmedabad dated 3.10.2003 in Reference
(LCA) No. 1071/1993 is hereby modified to the extent
that the respondent workman be paid Rs. 35,000/- in
all in lieu of the reinstatement and backwages and
towards the entire claim of the respondent No.1
workman as full and final settlement. The said
amount of Rs. 35,000 be paid to the respondent
workman as early as possible preferably within the
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this
order.

¶33

6.Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. However, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the petitioner shall pay a
sum of Rs. 1,000 towards the cost of the present
proceedings to the respondent-workman.

¶34

{ M.R. Shah, J. ]

¶35

RMR.

Bhuvaladi Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited v. Patel Yogeshkumar Ravjibhai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuvaladi Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited v. Patel Yogeshkumar Ravjibhai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deputy Executive Engineer Vs Jayanti Arjan

Deputy Executive Engineer Vs Mukesh Ajitsinh Jhala

Deputy Executive Engineer Vs Jitendra B. Jivani

State of Gujarat Vs Mansuri Rajakbhai Kasambhai

Dhoraji Municipality Vs Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Karmachari Maha Sangh

Thakore Makaji Ratnaji Vs Executive Engineer