STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. GIRVANSINH JITUBHAI SARVAIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of te Constitution of India is challenging award dtd. 28/10/2021 passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No.271 of 2001.

(2.) From the record, it appears that the respondent was performing duties as guard with the petitioner-Department at various places from the year 1991 and he was discharged in April, 2000. Thus, the respondent has performed duties for about 9 to 10 years. After being discharged in April, 2000, the respondent filed complaint before the Assistant Labor Commissioner on 29/6/2000. Thereafter, the respondent submitted statement of claim on 9/10/2001. The statement of defence was submitted by the petitioner-Department on 24/7/2003. After the death of the respondent, the heirs of the respondent submitted affidavit in form of evidence in this case on 19/12/2013. Thus, service of the respondent is about 9 to 10 years and upon considering the details of the case, the affidavit in form of evidence was submitted by the respondent. Further, no evidence is submitted in this case showing that the respondent tried to get work at other place after being discharged. The kind of work which was performed by the respondent at the petitioner-department could be easily found elsewhere. Thus, upon considering the years of service of the respondent with the petitioner-department, nature of work and possibility of getting work and since the respondent has died, therefore with regard to the compensation, taking into consideration the unattended days and considering the details of the present case, it appears that the respondent performed duties at the petitioner-department from the year 1991 to April-2000, when he was discharged and he was being paid Rs.1,500.00 per month. Therefore, on considering the fact that the respondent has rendered service of about 10 years, the amount of Rs.1,60,000.00 towards compensation was found just and accordingly, the same was granted.

(3.) Considering te aforesaid, the Court does not find any reason to interfere wit the decision of the Labour Court, more so, where the Labour Court has concluded that the respondent has worked from 1991 to 2000 with the petitioner-establishment and there being no other evidence contrary to record even brought before this Court.