2023 LLR 252
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Biren Vaishnav, J.
R/Spl. C.A. No. 11239, 11264/2017,
Dt/– 22-12-2022
Junagadh District Panchayat
vs.
Kachrabhai Sidibhai Malam & 1 Other(s)
DISMISSAL – When not justified – Workman was dismissed from service without compliance of section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act – He raised an industrial dispute – Labour Court awarded reinstatement without back wages – Management challenged award in writ petition – Held, contention of management is that workman was engaged in Seed Farm of Panchayat which has been handed over to Government and later on under Agricultural University – Contention of workmen is that he had completed 240 days in each year of service – Junior was detained – Hence, termination is also in violation of sections 25G and 25H – Workman was a daily wager depending on availability of work and fund – Termination was as a result of closure of Seed Farm – No seniority list was maintained by Panchayat – Juniors have been still working – No appointment letter was given to workmen – Seed Farm was given to government as per resolution passed by Panchayat – Amount of compensation, handed over by the demand draft was not accepted by the workmen and was deposited in the treasury – Workmen were extended benefits of the Government Resolution which was confirmed by the High Court in SCA No. 17621/2006 – Workmen were not under regular set up but on a seasonal basis – Once having granted the benefits of resolution, Panchayat under the pretext of closure of Seed Farm brought out termination of services of the respondent workmen – Once there was violation of the provisions of section 25G and 25H of the Act by giving benefits of the Resolution, workmen could not have been so terminated – Hence writ petition is dismissed. Paras 9 to 13
For Petitioner: Mr. H.S. Munshaw, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1: Mr. Samir B. Gohil, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINTS
JUDGMENT
Biren Vaishnav, J.–1. Both these petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenge the awards passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh, in Reference (T) Case No. 81 of 2008 and Reference (T) Case No. 83 of 2008 dated 22.02.2017 by which the Labour Court has allowed the references of the respondent workmen and directed reinstatement without back-wages.
2. For the purposes of this judgment, facts of Special Civil Application No. 11239 of 2017 will be considered.
3. Before the Labour Court, the respondent-workmen aggrieved by his termination on 22.11.2007, approached the Labour Court assailing the same on the ground that it was in violation of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was the case of the respondents that they were engaged in the Seed Farm run by the Junagadh District Panchayat since 1988. It was their case that their appointment was within the set up in accordance with the regular procedure of recruitment and in fact, by an award passed by the Labour Court in the earlier round when the Labour Court had directed the petitioner Panchayat to grant them the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988. The award which was challenged before the High Court is confirmed and therefore the termination was bad.
4. The stand of the petitioner Panchayat employer was that their termination on 22.11.2007 was as a result of the fact that initially the Seed Farms was with the Panchayat as they were so handed over by the Government. With the passage of time the Seed Farms went under the agricultural university. However thereafter, as the District Panchayat was removed from the control of the Seed Farms, the Seed Farms were handed back to the State Government. It was as a result of the fact of the Seed Farms being out of the Panchayat's control, that the termination was inevitable. The fact that the respondents-workmen had completed 240 days in each year of service was also denied. It was the case of the petitioner-employer that the provisions of section 25F was followed and therefore the termination was just and proper.
5. Before the Labour Court, the workman was examined at Exh. 12. It was his case that he was engaged with the Seed Farms since the year 1988 on a monthly wage of Rs. 2,640/-. That he had completed 240 days of continuous service. That juniors to him were retained. He would draw the attention of the Court to the award of the Labour Court and submit that the same would indicate that one Kana Arjan who was at the Manavadar Seed Farm was detained and according to the workman therefore the violation of section 25G and 25H.
6. Mr. H.S. Munshaw learned counsel appearing for the Junagadh District Panchayat in both these petitions would submit that the Labour Court had committed an error in not appreciating the fact that the respondents would be relieved after having been handed over the amount of compensation and therefore there was complete procedure that was followed in accordance with section 25F of the Act. Mr. Munshaw would further submit that the respondent was working as daily wage labourer depending on the availability of work and fund.
7. Mr. Munshaw would further submit that the General Body of the District Panchayat had passed a resolution in its meeting dated 19.03.2007 to handover the possession of the Seed Farms to the Government of Gujarat. The termination was just and proper. As far as the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 are concerned, it had no relevance to the issue because the termination was as a result of the closure of the seed farm which had nothing to do with the orders passed in the awards relating to the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988.
8. Mr. Samir Gohil learned counsel appearing for the respondent would invite the Court's attention to the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 17621 of 2006 wherein, the award granting the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 was confirmed. Attention was also invited to an order / oral judgement dated 04.04.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No. 9511 of 2015 wherein, the order of the Labour Court dated 05.01.2015 filed by the Panchayat against the order under complaint filed by the workman under the provisions of section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act was challenged and where the petition by the Panchayat though was allowed, an observation therein was made with regard to one Dana Arjan being retained and therefore the observation made by the award impugned therein regarding violation of section 25G and 25H was just and proper.
9. Having perused the award of the Labour Court, what is evident is that the workman was examined at Exh. 12. It was his case that he was working since the year 1988. That no seniority list was maintained by the Panchayat. It was his case that the termination happened in the year 2007. One Dana Arjan who was at the Manavadar Seed Farm and one Laxman Bhoja and two others named in the award were continued and their services were never terminated. It was their case that the procedure envisaged for closure of the seed farms was not followed and the compensation was not handed over in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Documents at Exh.11 indicate that there was no appointment letter given to the respondent workmen.
10. On behalf of the employer when Jayantibhai Premjibhai Bagda was examined at Exh. 21, it was his case that the Seed Farms were handed back to the Government and therefore, as a result of this, the respondent's work had to be discontinued. He denied violation of the provisions of section 25G and 25H. The Labour Court on examination of the documentary evidence at Exh. 15 which was a letter addressed by the District Cultural Officer of the District Panchayat, Junagadh, dated 22.11.2007, observed that it was resolved that the seed farm had to be closed from 01.04.2007 and in accordance with that a sanction was given by the department of agriculture on 25.09.2007 to handover the Seed Farms to the Government. It was found that on Exh. 16 being pressed into service, compensation amount was paid. Such document was also produced at Exh. 18 and Exh. 19. Reading his orders, the Labour Court observed that it was the case of the employer that about 10 square meters land was to be handed over for construction of residential quarters for Court at Junagadh. The amount of compensation which was handed over by the demand draft was not being accepted by the workmen was deposited in the treasury.
11. Reference (IT) No. 83 of 1995 which award was at Exh. 23 of the documentary evidence of the Labour Court indicated that the workmen were extended the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which award was confirmed by the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 17621 of 2006. These parameters by virtue of which the award of the Labour Court granting them the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 so confirmed by the High Court, in the opinion of the Labour Court indicated that the workmen had completed 240 days in service and that the argument of the Panchayat that the workmen were not under regular set up or that they were not working regularly but on a seasonal basis, was not accepted.
12. What further emerges from perusal of the award of the Labour is that one Dana Arjan was working at Manavadar Seed Farm and one Lakhan Bhoja as was the case of the workmen, was absorbed on the closure of the Seed Farm and were continued at the Manavadar Seed Farm. This, in the opinion of the Labour Court was a direct violation of sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. Perusal of the orders passed by this Court on 24.08.2006 in Special Civil Application No. 17621 of 2006 indicates that once having granted the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988, the petitioner Panchayat under the pretext of closure of Seed Farm brought out termination of services of the respondent workmen.
13. Examination of evidence as discussed hereinabove by the Labour Court would indicate that in the opinion of this Court the Labour Court rightly came to the conclusion that once there was violation of the provisions of section 25G and 25H and moreover in addition thereto when it was found that the respondent workmen were working for 240 days in each year of service and having been granted the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 they could not have been so terminated.
14. No fault can be found with the award of the Labour Court and both the petitions are accordingly dismissed.