SCA/8243/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8243 of 2008 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 ? ========================================================= GUJARAT WATER SEWARGE SUPPLY BOARD - Petitioner Versus HARIBHAI BAVANJIBHAI MAKWANA - Respondent ========================================================= Appearance : MR RITURAJ M MEENA for Petitioner : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent : 1, MR SHAKTI S JADEJA for Respondent : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 12/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT SCA/8243/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr. Jadeja, learned counsel waives service of Rule. With the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, matter is fixed forthwith. 2. The petitioner, employer has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Award dated 7.1.2008 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 113 of 2003 ordering reinstatement of the respondent workman and granting 30% back wages. 3. Shri Meena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court ought to have taken into consideration the facts available on record and come to conclusion on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. The cursory glance at the award would show that the Labour Court has passed the Award on sole ground of High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal and Special Civil Application filed by the petitioner in respect of other workmen on the consideration that present workman was similarly situated. Shri Meena has pointed out from the testimony of one Maheshbhai H. Jani, employee of Board, which in terms go to show that retrenchment compensation was paid. Shri Meena further submitted that workman, in whose case the award was challenged SCA/8243/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT by the Board by preferring Special Civil Application No. 20133 of 2006 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 1387 of 2006 and allied matters, were not exactly similarly situated like present respondent workman and therefore, on that count also, the reasoning of the Labour Court for allowing the award is not sustainable. 4. Shri Jadeja, learned counsel appearing for respondent workman submitted that in the case of present respondent also, compensation though said to have been paid, has not been paid strictly in accordance with requirement of provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act and therefore, payment of compensation cannot be said to be a compensation as required and hence, the award has rightly been passed. However, Shri Jadeja could not point out from the award as to any observation by the labour Court and finding of the labour Court to this effect. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The award appears to be passed on the sole basis of fact that in other workmens' case, the challenge to award by the Board had failed upto LPA stage. The order made by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 20133 of 2006 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 1387 of 2006 and allied matters are placed on record. In these orders, it appear that this Court has noted that Labour Court has recorded finding SCA/8243/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT that the concerned workman had not been paid retrenchment compensation, whereas, in the case on hand, the testimony of the aforesaid employee of the Corporation, who deposed before the Labour Court that retrenchment compensation was paid, would make the case different than the one, which has been taken upto LPA stage. It deserves to be noted that the Labour Court has not recorded its finding anywhere with regard to short payment of retrenchment compensation so as to make retrenchment order vulnerable and non- compliance of provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act. In absence of any such finding, the award cannot be sustained. The award therefore is required to be quashed and set aside and accordingly same is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the labour Court for deciding afresh and for passing appropriate orders in light of the evidences adduced by both the parties. Counsel for the parties have assured this Court that the parties will not sought avoidable adjournments and the matter will be decided as expeditiously as possible. The Labour Court is expected to decide the matter strictly on merits in accordance with law on the evidences available and record its finding with regard to compliance with Section 25-F or not. 6. With aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute SCA/8243/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) pallav