Dismissed

Ramnik Jugatram Jani v. Amarsinhji Mills Ltd.

Gujarat HC1 Aug 2005SCA/5419/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the Industrial Court's order denying reinstatement and backwages as a Badli Worker. The High Court held the lower courts' decision legal, relying on principles that Badli Workers have no right to a specific post, and dismissed the application while directing payment of awarded dues.

What did the court decide?

The Special Civil Application is dismissed. The respondent is directed to pay the awarded amount of Rs.20,000/- within 6 weeks.

Ramnik Jugatram Jani Vs Amarsinhji Mills Ltd. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Gujarat HC (2005)

¶1

SCA/5419/20051/6

¶2

JUDGMENT

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶4

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5419 of 2005

¶5

For Approval and Signature:

¶6

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶10

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 ?

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

RAMNIK JUGATRAM JANI - Petitioner(s) Versus

¶14

AMARSINHJI MILLS LTD. - Respondent(s)

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

Appearance :

¶18

MR KJ DWIVEDIfor Petitioner No(s).: 1.
PS GOGIAfor Respondent No(s).: 1.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Date : 01/08/2005

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

1.In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner workman has challenged the
legality and validity of the judgment and order passed

¶24

SCA/5419/20052/6

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

by the Industrial Court, Rajkot dated 24.1.2003 passed
in Appeal (IC) No.6/90 in partly allowing the same
directing the petitioner to pay an amount of
Rs.20,000/-only towards all the benefits available to
the petitioner between the period from 1977 to 1983.

¶27

2. The petitioner was serving as a Badli Worker with the
respondent. It appears that while he was on duty on 30th
August, 1983, he met with an accident and his hand was
amputated and was having 60% permanent partial
disability. It was the case on behalf of the respondent
that thereafter, on the basis of medical certificate,
he was entitled to light duty work and as he was not
offered light duty work, he raised industrial dispute
by way of approaching Labour Court, Rajkot being B.I.R.
Application No.95/84. The said application was opposed
by the respondent mill company by contending inter alia
that there is no denial of work by the respondent
company and that they are ready and willing to give
work to the petitioner workman as per the seniority. It
was further submitted that in fact, the petitioner
workman has himself stopped coming on duty. The Labour

¶28

Court on appreciation of evidence held that there is no
retrenchment and/or termination by the respondent and
the petitioner being Badli Worker, the respondent

¶29

SCA/5419/2005

¶30

3/6JUDGMENT

¶31

company was not supposed to offer work to the
petitioner and he has no right to get the work and
therefore, the Labour Court, Rajkot by judgment and
award dated 22.11.90 did not grant the relief with
regard to reinstatement and backwages. However, on
huminity ground, directed the respondent to consider
the case of the petitioner for some other light duty
work, such as water-boy, safaiwala, peon, etc., as and
when the Badli work is available. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the
Labour Court, Rajkot dated22.11.90 passed in B.I.R.
Application No.95/84 in not granting backwages and
continuity in service, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before the Industrial Court, Rajkot being Appeal

¶32

(IC) No.6/90. However, considering the service of the
petitioner even as Badli Worker for the period between
1977 to 1983, the Industrial Court, Rajkot by its
judgment and order dated 24.1.2003 directed the
petitioner to pay Rs.20,000/-lump sum towards the dues
for the aforesaid period. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the same the petitioner has preferred
the present Special Civil Application under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.

¶33

3.It is not disputed that the petitioner was serving as a

¶34

SCA/5419/2005

¶35

4/6

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Badli Worker and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶38

in case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation &

¶39

Another V/s. S.G.Kotturappa & Another reported in JT
2005(3) SC P.20, Badli Worker has no right over the
post and they cannot as a matter of right claim for the
work. As and when the regular permanent employee/worker
and/or even the daily wagers are not available, in that

¶40

case the Badli Worker are to be offered the works.
Under the circumstances, not granting of the backwages

¶41

and reinstatement by both the Courts below cannot be
said to be in any way illegal and/or contrary to the
provision of the statute and/or cannot be said as a
perverse which requires the interference of this Court

¶42

in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Even otherwise, the Industrial

¶43

Court has, considering the period for which the
petitioner had worked as a Badli Worker for the period

¶44

from 1977 to 1983, directed to pay Rs.20,000/- lump sum
towards the dues. Not only that this Court is also

¶45

informed that the petitioner has also got some amount

¶46

from the Workman Compensation Commissioner. Under the

¶47

circumstances, it cannot be said that the judgment and
order passed by the Industrial Court requires any
interference at the hands of this Court. Under the
circumstances, the present Special Civil Application

¶48

SCA/5419/20055/6JUDGMENT

¶49

requires to be dismissed and it is accordingly
dismissed.

¶50

4.However, while dismissing the present Special Civil
Application, it is observed that in case, in future, if
some light duty work is available, respondent will
offer work on the basis of Badli Worker and the case of
the petitioner be considered for the reemployment, as
observed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in its judgment
and award dated 22.11.90. It will be open for the
petitioner to accept the said amount of Rs.20,000/-as
ordered by the Industrial Court in its order dated
24.1.2003 passed in Appeal (IC) No.6/90 and the
respondent is directed to pay the said amount to the
petitioner within a period of 6 weeks from the date of
receipt of this order. Acceptance of the aforesaid
amount of Rs.20,000/- will not come in the way of the
petitioner if in future there is an occasion to offer
work to the petitioner as per the observation made by
the Labour Court, Rajkot made in its judgment and award
dated 22.11.90 passed in B.I.R. Application No.95/84.

¶51

 With these observations and directions, the
present Special Civil Application is dismissed.

¶52

SCA/5419/20056/6

¶53

JUDGMENT

¶54

(M.R.SHAH, J.)

¶55

kdc.

Ramnik Jugatram Jani v. Amarsinhji Mills Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramnik Jugatram Jani v. Amarsinhji Mills Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Gujarat Vs Jayantibhai Nathabhai C/O. Bharatiya Majdoor Sangh

Dy.Engineer Vs Anilkumar Narsinhbhai Barot

Tata Chemicals Limited Vs Deviben Bhikhabhai

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs N.M.Chisty

Chhani Village Panchayat through Sarpanch Vs Ramsinh Jokhabhai Meda

Raojibhai Melabhai Mali Vs Chhaani Gram Panchayat