SCA/1237020/2006 1/8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12370 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 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 ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================= A. M. NAIR - Petitioner Versus INDIAN RAYON & INDUSTRIES LTD. - Respondent ================================================= Appearance : MR VIRENDRA BAHETI for Petitioner : MR. NIRAV JOSHI for M/SNANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Respondent : ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 12/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner-workman has challenged the award & order dated 5/5/2006 made by the Labour Court in Reference (LCJ) No. 3/2003 only to the extent that the Labour Court has not granted 100 % back wages and instead thereof only lump sum compensation is awarded in lieu of back wages & reinstatement. SCA/1237020/2006 2/8 JUDGMENT 2. It was the case of the workman before the Labour Court, Junagadh that the termination was illegal and hence he was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. The Labour Court has held that the termination was illegal but bearing in mind the aspect of his advancing in age as the petitioner had approached ahead of age of 59 and only a short period of 6 months was left for completing the age of 60 years, Labour Court did not grant reinstatement and instead of reinstatement granted lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement as well as back wages. The Labour Court has elaborately discussed as to why back wages is not to be granted as testimony of the workman was so clear with regard to his inertia in finding any alternative employment and or work. The testimony is relied upon by the Labour Court and, therefore, the Court did not grant back wages. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award of not granting of 100 % back wages petitioner has preferred present petition. 3. Shri Baheti, learned counsel appearing for the workman- petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was serving as Typist and in a place like Veraval naturally he would not be gainfully employed. He submitted that this fact ought to have weighed with the Labour Court while examining the issue with regard to granting of back wages. Shri Baheti has fairly conceded that this petition is confined only in regard to non granting of 100 % back wages and no reinstatement is claimed and the award is not challenged qua non-granting of reinstatement. Shri Baheti has submitted that as the workman was still not SCA/1237020/2006 3/8 JUDGMENT completed his age of 60 years he would have reinstated in service or the Labour Court should have taken into consideration last drawn salary for arriving at an appropriate figure for awarding lump sum payment as it was being made in light of reinstatement. Shri Baheti has further submitted that, even if the workman has worked intermittently there would not be any proof and therefore when the workman honestly admitted that he did not attempt to engage himself gainfully, that in itself would not be held against him. 4. Shri Nirav Joshi for M/s Nanavati Associates has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of U.P. STATE BRASSWARE CORPN. LTD AND ANOTHER Vs. UDAY NARAIN PANDEY, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 479 and submitted that the reasoning of the Labour Court with regard to back wages are absolutely just & proper and in accordance with law and they do not call for any interference in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. This Court has heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the impugned award. The testimony of the workman unequivocally go to show that the Labour Court has rightly held that the workman was entitled to lump sum compensation as awarded. The reasoning assigned by the Labour Court can not be said to be suffering from any infirmity so as to warranting interference by this Court. In fact in view of the Apex Court ruling in respect of back wages in case of U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd (supra), the decision of the SCA/1237020/2006 4/8 JUDGMENT Labour Court's reasoning based thereunder can not be said to be in any way unfair so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. It is further submitted by Mr. Joshi that the amount of compensation awarded by the Labour Court has been deposited by the respondent and the same has been withdrawn by the petitioner-workman. 7. In view of above, this petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. However there shall be no order as to cost. [ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12370 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? SCA/1237020/2006 5/8 JUDGMENT 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 ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================= A. M. NAIR - Petitioner Versus INDIAN RAYON & INDUSTRIES LTD. - Respondent ================================================= Appearance : MR VIRENDRA BAHETI for Petitioner : MR. NIRAV JOSHI for M/SNANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Respondent : ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 12/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner-workman has challenged the award & order dated 5/5/2006 made by the Labour Court in Reference (LCJ) No. 3/2003 only to the extent that the Labour Court has not granted 100 % back wages and instead thereof only lump sum compensation is awarded in lieu of back wages & reinstatement. 2. It was the case of the workman before the Labour Court, Junagadh that the termination was illegal and hence he was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. The Labour Court has held that the termination was illegal but bearing in mind the aspect of his advancing in age as the petitioner had approached ahead of age of 59 and only a short period of 6 months was left for completing the age of 60 years, Labour Court did not grant reinstatement and instead of reinstatement granted lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement as well as SCA/1237020/2006 6/8 JUDGMENT back wages. The Labour Court has elaborately discussed as to why back wages is not to be granted as testimony of the workman was so clear with regard to his inertia in finding any alternative employment and or work. The testimony is relied upon by the Labour Court and, therefore, the Court did not grant back wages. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award of not granting of 100 % back wages petitioner has preferred present petition. 3. Shri Baheti, learned counsel appearing for the workman- petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was serving as Typist and in a place like Veraval naturally he would not be gainfully employed. He submitted that this fact ought to have weighed with the Labour Court while examining the issue with regard to granting of back wages. Shri Baheti has fairly conceded that this petition is confined only in regard to non granting of 100 % back wages and no reinstatement is claimed and the award is not challenged qua non-granting of reinstatement. Shri Baheti has submitted that as the workman was still not completed his age of 60 years he would have reinstated in service or the Labour Court should have taken into consideration last drawn salary for arriving at an appropriate figure for awarding lump sum payment as it was being made in liue of reinstatement. Shri Baheti has further submitted that, even if the workman has worked intermittently there would not be any proof and therefore when the workman honestly admitted that he did not attempt to engage himself gainfully, that in itself would not be held against him. SCA/1237020/2006 7/8 JUDGMENT 4. Shri Nirav Joshi for M/s Nanavati Associates has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of U.P. STATE BRASSWARE CORPN. LTD AND ANOTHER Vs. UDAY NARAIN PANDEY, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 479 and submitted that the reasoning of the Labour Court with regard to back wages are absolutely just & proper and in accordance with law and they do not call for any interference in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. This Court has heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the impugned award. The testimony of the workman unequivocally go to show that the Labour Court has rightly held that the workman was entitled to lump sum compensation as awarded. The reasoning assigned by the Labour Court can not be said to be suffering from any infirmity so as to warranting interference by this Court. In fact in view of the Apex Court ruling in respect of back wages in case of U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd (supra), the decision of the Labour Court's reasoning based thereunder can not be said to be in any way unfair so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. It is further submitted by Mr. Joshi that the amount of compensation awarded by the Labour Court has been deposited by the respondent and the same has been withdrawn by the petitioner-workman. 7. In view of above, this petition deserves to be dismissed SCA/1237020/2006 8/8 JUDGMENT and is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. However there shall be no order as to cost. [ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn