SCA/4214/1997 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4214 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? No 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No ========================================================= INDRAPALSING N SAIGAR - Petitioner(s) Versus SAVARIYA ALLOYS FOUNDRY - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MUKESH H RATHOD for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR DG CHAUHAN for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 09/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the direction given by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.1480 of 1989 by which the Labour Court SCA/4214/1997 2/4 JUDGMENT has directed the respondent-employer to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- in view of settlement. It is also further prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with full back wages. 2. The petitioner was serving with the respondent and his services came to be terminated on 17.5.1989. It is an admitted position that within two months of the termination, the respondent establishment is closed with effect from 7.7.1989. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, for its decision and which was numbered as Reference (LCA) No.1480 of 1989. The reference was contested by the respondent. After giving fullest opportunity to the respective parties and on appreciation of evidence and on considering the fact that the establishment is closed with effect from 7.7.1989, the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in stead of granting reinstatement passed an order directing the respondent to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/-. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner – workman has preferred the present Special Civil SCA/4214/1997 3/4 JUDGMENT Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Mr.Mukesh H.Rathod, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the closer of the establishment was since 7.7.1989 and prior thereto the petitioner was terminated i.e. 17.5.1989 and, therefore, the Labour Court ought to have granted reinstatement rather than passing the order of paying Rs.15,000/- only. By making the above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil Application. 5. Mr.D.G.Chauhan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, while opposing the present petition, has submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly when the establishment is admittedly closed since 7.7.1989 after following due procedure and when the Labour Court considering the above has passed the order to pay lump sum of Rs.15,000/- by way of compensation, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the petition. 6. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. SCA/4214/1997 4/4 JUDGMENT 7. It is an admitted position that the establishment is closed since 7.7.1989 and even looking to the impugned judgment and award, there is no finding given by the Labour Court whether the termination was illegal or not. Still considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court passed the order directing the respondent to pay the compensation of Rs.15,000/- against the back wages which in the facts and circumstances of the case is not required to be interfered with in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. For the reasons stated above, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. However, it is observed that if the amount of Rs.15,000/- as ordered by the Labour Court is not paid by the respondent to the petitioner so far, the same shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within a period of three months which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5%. ( M.R. SHAH, J.) syed/