Case: District Development Officer &amp; Another Vs. Satish Kantilal Amrelia

3. The controversy involved in the appeals is confined to short facts, which, however, need mention hereinbelow to appreciate the same.4. The appellant is the Panchayat Department of State of Gujarat having its office at Bhavnagar. The respondentSatish Kantilal Amrelia worked in the appellants Revenue Department at Bhavnagar as aThe respondent felt aggrieved of his termination and initiated two actions against the appellant. In the first instance, challenging his termination order dated 23.03.1992 from the services, the respondent filed Civil Suit No.141 of 1992 in the Civil Court at Bhavnagar. During the pendency of the civil suit, he also approached to the State (Labour Commissioner) and prayed for making Industrial Reference to the concerned Labour Court under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for deciding the legality and propriety of his termination order.6. The Labour Commissioner made an Industrial Reference No.166 of 1992 to the Labour Court No. 2 at Bhavnagar for deciding the legality and correctness of the termination order and for regularization of respondents services.7. The 2nd Joint Civil Judge (SD), Bhavnagar, vide judgment/decree dated 03.05.1994 decreed the respondents suit, set aside the termination order and directed the appellant (State) tothe respondent in service with all consequential benefits.8. Against the judgment/decree of the Trial Court, the appellant filed first appeal being Civil Appeal No.45/1994 before the Assistant Judge, Bhavnagar. The Appellate Court, by order dated 30.09.2003, allowed the appellants appeal, set aside the judgment/decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the respondents civil suit. In substance, the Appellate Court upheld the respondents termination order.9. The Labour Court, however, by Award dated 01.02.2006 (Annexureanswered the Reference in respondents favour. Applying the provisions of the Act, the Labour Court held that since the respondent was able to prove that he has worked for 240 days continuously in one previous calendar year, he was entitled to get the protection of the Act. It was held that it was a case of illegal retrenchment because the respondent was not paid any prior retrenchment compensation before termination of his services. The Labour Court also held that there was violation of Sectionof the Act in passing the termination order. The Labour Court accordingly directed the appellant(State) tothe respondent in service along with payment of 40% back wages.10. The appellant (State) felt aggrieved, filed writ petition (Special Civil Application No.8390/2006) before the High Court of Gujarat. By order dated 21.04.2006, the Single Judge dismissed the appellants writ petition and affirmed the Award of the Labour Court. The appellant then filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court but it was dismissed in default. The appellant applied for restoration of the Letters Patent Appeal but it was dismissed and hence this appeal by special leave was filed by the State before this Court against the order of the Division Bench as also against the order of the Single Judge.

Court's reasoning:
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeals in part and while setting aside the impugned orders (Single Judge and Division Bench), modify the Award of the Labour Court as indicated below.13. Having gone through the entire record of the case and further keeping in view the nature of factual controversy, findings of the Labour Court, the manner in which the respondent fought this litigation on two fronts simultaneously, namely, one in Civil Court and the other in Labour Court in challenging his termination order and seeking regularization in service, which resulted in passing the two conflicting ordersone in respondents favour (Labour Court) and the other against him (Civil Court) and lastly, it being an admitted fact that the respondent was a daily wager during his short tenure, which lasted hardly two and half years approximately and coupled with the fact that 25 years has since been passed from the date of his alleged termination, we are of the considered opinion that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal [(2014) 7 SCC 177]   would aptly apply to the facts of this case and we prefer to apply the same for disposal of these appeals.We have taken note of one fact here that the Labour Court has also found that the termination is bad due to violation of Sectionof the Act. In our opinion, taking note of overall factual scenario emerging from the record of the case and having regard to the nature of the findings rendered and further the averments made in the SLP justifying the need to pass the termination order, this case does not fall in exceptional cases as observed by this Court in Para 35 of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited case (supra) due to finding of Sectionof the Act recorded against the appellant. In other words, there are reasons to take out the case from exceptional cases contained in Para 35 because we find that the appellant did not resort to any kind of unfair practice while terminating the services of the respondent.16. In view of forgoing discussion, we are of the considered view that it would be just, proper and reasonable to award lump sum monetary compensation to the respondent in full and final satisfaction of his claim ofand other consequential benefits by taking recourse to the powers under Sectionof the Act and the law laid down by this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited case (supra).