RAVJIBHAI FULLABHAI NAI Vs. AIMS OXYGEN PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The appellant - the second party workman in Reference (LCV) Case No.321 of 1998 in the proceedings before the Labour Court, Vadodara and the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.5833 of 2012, has by way of this Letters Patent Appeal challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 25.04.2012 in writ petition being Special Civil Application No.5833 of 2012, where-under the learned Single Judge has concurred with the findings and the relief granted by the Labour Court in the proceedings of reference vide award dated 22.09.2011, whereby the appellant workman was awarded a lump-sum payment of Rs.70,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and other relief after recording findings qua the illegality and unsustainibility of the termination order of the workman passed on 24.06.1989.

(3.) Facts in brief, as could be gathered from the memo of petition and the award deserves to be set out here under for ready reference; 3.1 The appellant - workman was working as Gas feater in the respondent company since 01.06.1974. The employer at the relevant time, as it is alleged in the statement of claim wanted to offer voluntary retirement to the employees for resizing the strength of the staff and as the management failed in obtaining requisite consent from the staff members, it was designed to see to it that workman was terminated on the pretext of the defection in duty as alleged. The workman was initially relieved on 01.06.1989 and in conciliation proceedings thereafter, the management had taken a stand that the workman had not challenged the termination order, the earlier reference being Reference (LCV) No. 646 of 1989 was not tenable. The workman's services were in fact terminated vide order dated 24.06.1989. 3.2 As the workman as per his say, has not given any opportunity of defending his case, the workman raised one more dispute in the year 1998, which came tobe referred to the competent Court wherein it was registered as Reference (LCV) No.328 of 1998. the Statement of claim was filed by the workman, interalia, alleging the victimization, lack of opportunity, incorrect findings, perversity in the report and assailed the order of termination dated 24.06.1989. The Labour Court after recording reasons and holding that the termination order of workman was not sustainable, as it was found to be actuated on account of extraneous considerations and without affording opportunity and inquiry itself was conducted in haste and it was found that workman was required tobe granted some relief. 3.3 The Labour Court did consider the factum of the time leg between the order of termination and the date of passing of the award and came to the conclusion that the workman could not be possibly for remain unemployed on account of the lapse of time looking to his technical nature of his work, the Labour Court, therefore, after holding in favour of the workman completely qua unsustainability of the order of termination dated 24.06.1989 did not grant the relief of reinstatement or complete back-wages. Instead thereof the Labour Court ordered lump-sum compensation of Rs.70,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back-wages. The Labour Court did advert to the details of the wages drawn by the workman, the time leg and the earlier reference, which was rejected and came to the conclusion that in those circumstances, the workman deserved to be granted only relief of monitory compensation in lieu of the reinstatement and back-wages. The said award passed by the Labour Court on 22.09.2011 was challenged by the present appellant workman in this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.5833 of 2012, in which the learned Single Judge of this Court after concurring with the findings came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Labour Court does not need not to be interfered with and accordingly dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by such judgment of the learned Single Judge, present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act