Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 371 (GUJ)

Abdul Hafij Yakubbhai Patel v. Manager

2017-02-14

K.M.THAKER

body2017
JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Neelkanth Mehta, learned advocate, for Mr. S.A. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 3132 of 2008, and Mr. Valmik Vyas, learned advocate, for Mr. A.J. Yagnik, learned advocate for the respondent in Special Civil Application No. 3132 of 2008. 2. So far as Special Civil Application No. 8795 of 2008 is concerned, the said petition is filed by the respondent in Special Civil Application No. 3132 of 2008 against the same award which is challenged in Special Civil Application No. 3132 of 2008. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 3132 of 2008 is the employer (Manager/Proprietor of the establishment named Golden Theater) whereas the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 8795 of 2008 is the concerned employee/claimant. 3. The parties in both the petitions are common. The award challenged in both petitions is the same. Rival contentions for both petitions are also similar. Special Civil Application No. 8795 of 2008 apparently and obviously is a cross petition. 4. In this view of the matter, both petitions are decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as employer and employee/claimant. 5. The award dated 23.7.2007 passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 1144 of 1999 is placed under challenge in captioned two petitions. By the impugned award, learned Labour Court has set aside the employer's action viz. termination of claimant's service and the learned Labour Court has directed the employer to reinstate the claimant on his original post with 25% backwages. 6. At the outset, it is relevant and appropriate to mention that while assailing the award, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the establishment i.e. the Golden Theater is closed, its operations are closed and entire theater building is demolished and neither the establishment nor the activity nor the building now exists. 7. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from rival submissions by learned advocates for the contesting parties that the claimant raised industrial dispute with the allegation that the opponent employer terminated his service illegally and arbitrarily on 29.3.1999 without following procedure prescribed by law. With such allegations, the claimant demanded reinstatement. The appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad. With such allegations, the claimant demanded reinstatement. The appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad. The dispute and order of reference culminated into Reference (LCA) No. 1144 of 1999. 7.1 In the statement of claim before learned Labour Court, the claimant alleged that he joined service with the opponent employer (golden theater) in June 1992 and he was working as booking clerk at salary of Rs. 2,130/- p.m. He alleged that the opponent employer abruptly terminated his service by an order stating "No need of you" vide communication/order dated 29.3.1999 without following any procedure prescribed by law. He alleged that neither the principles of natural justice were complied nor compensation was paid. With such allegations, the claimant demanded that he should be reinstated with all consequential benefits. 7.2 The opponent employer opposed the reference and resisted the demand of the claimant. The opponent employer contended that the claimant had raised dispute with ulterior motive of not repaying the loan amount. It was claimed by the employer that the claimant had borrowed, as loan, Rs. 30,000/- which he had to repay. However, since the claimant did not repay the amount for almost 6 months and when the said amount was demanded from the claimant, he raised concocted dispute. The opponent employer also contended that the claimant was extremely irregular and indisciplined and he was careless and negligent in performing duty. The employer also alleged that during duty hours, he used to sleep in the balcony of the theater and he was not present at the place of work. The employer also alleged that the claimant never used to return balance amount to the cine viewers and therefore, the customers used to lodge complaints against him every now and then. The opponent contended that in view of such irresponsible conduct of the respondent, his service was discontinued on 29.3.1999 by payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice. With such submissions, the opponent employer contended that there is no justification in claimant's demand and the reference should be rejected. 7.3 Upon conclusion of pleadings, the learned Labour Court received documentary and oral evidence from both sides and after the parties completed the evidence, the learned Labour Court heard rival submissions and passed impugned award with above mentioned directions. 8. 7.3 Upon conclusion of pleadings, the learned Labour Court received documentary and oral evidence from both sides and after the parties completed the evidence, the learned Labour Court heard rival submissions and passed impugned award with above mentioned directions. 8. During hearing of these petitions, learned counsel for the employer, at the outset, reiterated the offer for full and final settlement with a view to putting final end to the litigation. Learned counsel for the employer submitted, on the basis of instruction from the employer, that the employer is ready to pay reasonable amount between 1 Lakh to 1.5 Lakhs to the respondent with a view to putting final end to entire litigation and all claims, disputes and demands of the respondent including the claim, dispute and demands raised by the claimant. The claimant, however, considered the amount/offer inadequate. 9. Further negotiations and discussion ensured between the parties and learned counsel for the employer, on instruction from the employer, offered that the employer shall pay amount of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs to the claimant within period of 8 weeks. The claimant accepted the offer. 10. Therefore, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that said offer is acceptable and the claimant is ready and has agreed to receive Rs. 2.5 Lakhs to finally close the litigation. 10.1 Accordingly, a consensus is arrived at between the parties and an amicable settlement is arrived at, outside the Court, between the employer and the workman. Therefore, the learned advocates jointly submitted to dispose the petitions in light of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties. 11. In view of said consensus arrived at between the parties, the captioned petitions, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8795 of 2008 and Special Civil Application No. 3132 of 2008, are disposed of with the clarification and direction that the employer shall pay sum of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs to the claimant i.e. petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 8795 of 2008 within 8 weeks as full and final settlement of all claims, disputes and demands of the claimant and the claimant will receive and accept the said amount as full and final settlement of his all claims, disputes and demands, etc. including those raised by him in Special Civil Application No. 8795 of 2008. including those raised by him in Special Civil Application No. 8795 of 2008. The amount shall be paid by account payee cheque to the claimant and the claimant shall execute the receipt acknowledging payment in favour of the employer declaring that the amount is received and accepted by him in full and final settlement of his claims. 12. In light of said settlement arrived at between the parties, learned counsel for the employer and the claimant jointly submitted that the award passed by learned Labour Court in Reference (LCA) No. 1144 of 1999 may be appropriately modified. 13. Therefore, in view of joint request by learned advocates, the award dated 23.7.2007 passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 1144 of 1999 is modified and direction to reinstate the claimant with 25% backwages is set aside and in lieu of said direction, the employer is directed to pay, as lump sum compensation, within 8 weeks Rs. 2.5 Lakhs to the claimant towards all claims, rights, disputes and demands of the claimant. With aforesaid clarification and observations, petitions are disposed of in light of the settlement arrived at between the parties outside the Court. Orders accordingly. Disposed off.