Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 610 (GUJ)

Uniflex Cables v. Mahesh P. Thakkar

2014-05-02

K.J.THAKER

body2014
JUDGMENT : K.J. Thaker, J. These petitions, arising in common back-ground, have been heard together and are being finally disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Special Civil Application Nos. 20070/2005 and 20066/2005 are preferred by Uniflex Cables, the employer for quashing and setting aside the impugned award dated 01.01.2005 passed by the Labour Court, Valsad in reference L.C.B. No. 192/1990, whereas Special Civil Application Nos. 8094/2005 and 8095/2005 are preferred by the employees against the award of the Labour Court. 3. We may notice the facts as emerging from the record of Special Civil Application No. 20070 of 2005: The respondent-workman was serving with the petitioner company as a Store Keeper Electrician. On account of misconducts relating to the gross indiscipline, insubordination, mischief, damage, sabotage etc. committed by the respondent, he was placed under suspension by order dated 18.05.1986. Thereafter a charge sheet was served upon him on 28.05.1986 calling for his explanation regarding the misconduct committed by him. Since the explanation was not found satisfactory, a departmental inquiry was initiated. The respondent workman was given ample opportunity to put forward his defence. He was intimated the dates of hearing of the inquiry by the R.P.A.D. However, he had not remained present though he was informed. The Inquiry Officer had thereafter submitted his report and recommended to remove the respondent from the services on account of charges of misconduct proved against him. Thereafter, the respondent was given a second show cause notice. On 20.09.1986 he was dismissed from service. He was paid subsistence allowance during the period of inquiry. Thereafter the respondent workman had raised an industrial dispute which was eventually referred to the Labour Court, Valsad for adjudication being Reference L.C.B. No. 192/1990. The Labour Court had considering all the relevant aspects, passed a detailed order dated 05.04.1993 holding that the disciplinary proceedings held against the respondent workman was legal and proper. The said order is not challenged by the respondent before this Court. The Labour Court has passed the final award on 01.01.2005 partly allowing the reference and setting aside the order of dismissal passed against the respondent workman. The Labour Court has also directed to pay the sum of Rs. 95,000/-. The Labour Court has not passed the order of reinstatement in favour of the respondent workman. However, the Labour Court has directed to pay Rs. 1000/- towards the cost to the respondent. Hence, this petition. The Labour Court has also directed to pay the sum of Rs. 95,000/-. The Labour Court has not passed the order of reinstatement in favour of the respondent workman. However, the Labour Court has directed to pay Rs. 1000/- towards the cost to the respondent. Hence, this petition. 4. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court to the charges levelled and has submitted the following: 1. That the compensation could not have been awarded when the misconduct was proved. 2. The Labour Court should not have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act which could have been exercised only if there was a victimization. Once the charges are held to be proved and are subject to judicial scrutiny. The Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. 5. On the totality of the facts and circumstances, I do not see any merit in both these petitions. I concur with the observations made by the Tribunal. Hence, both the petitions, being Special Civil Application Nos. 20070/2005 and 20066/2005 preferred by the employer are dismissed. 6. This takes this Court to the other two matters where having concurred with Labour Court the submissions made by Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondents are that: 1. The order passed by the Labour Court is irrational, arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore the said order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 2. The petitioners have put in more than 2 years of service. If gratuity and retrenchment compensation alone is calculated it will be above Rs. 90,000/-. 7. Hence, the misconduct is proved. It cannot be said that the Labour Court has committed any error of law much less of jurisdiction in granting stay. 8. The Labour Court has directed that the compensation should be paid. The petitioner had put in nearly nine years of service. Therefore, in light of the following decisions of the Apex Court the matter deserves consideration: 1. In case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and anr. v. GIDAM Singh reported in (2013) 5 SCC 136 ; 2. In case of In-charge Officer and anr. v. Shankar Shetty reported in (2010) 9 SCC 126 ; 3. In case of Rajkumar s/o Rohitlal Mishra v. Jal Gaon Municipal Corporation reported in (2013) 2 SCC 751 ; 4. In case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santoshkumar Seal and ors. In case of In-charge Officer and anr. v. Shankar Shetty reported in (2010) 9 SCC 126 ; 3. In case of Rajkumar s/o Rohitlal Mishra v. Jal Gaon Municipal Corporation reported in (2013) 2 SCC 751 ; 4. In case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santoshkumar Seal and ors. Reported in (2010) 6 SCC 773 ; 5. In case of Jagbir Singh v. Hariyana State Agriculture Marketing Board and ors. Reported in (2009) 15 SCC 327 ; 6. In case of Nagar Palika (Now Municipal Corporation) v. State of U.P and ors. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 127 ; 7. In case of Municipal Counsel, Sujapur v. Surinderkumar reported in 2006 5 SCC 137 . 9. Considering the fact that the incident is of the year 1986, and for a period of more than 18 years the petitioners have suffered agony. Hence, a lump-sum compensation, as awarded by the Labour Court, is substituted by the following operative order: The petitioner shall be entitled to gratuity and retrenchment compensation and in addition to the amount of Rs. 95,000/- (which has been kept in the fixed deposit the interest and which has accrued) shall be paid to the present petitioner and an additional amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner. The award is modified to the aforesaid extent. All the four petitions stand disposed of. Writ petitions disposed of.