Case- Thakor Shivaji Kanaji vs Water Supply And Sewerage Board
Decided on: 3 July, 2023
CORAM: HON’BLE Justice Rajendra M. Sareen
Facts of the Case
The case involves two Special Civil Applications. In Special Civil Application No.14211 of 2013, Thakar Shivaji Kanaji, the petitioner, challenges the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Mehsana, which awarded him Rs.10,000/- as lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. The petitioner seeks reinstatement and back wages alternatively, or an enhanced compensation.
Thakar Shivaji Kanaji, the workman, worked as a laborer for the respondent from 2001 with a monthly salary of Rs.2000/-. The respondent terminated his services on 30/6/2003 without notice or notice pay, which the workman claims is a violation of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner, who referred the dispute to the Labour Court Mehsana as Reference (LCM) No.639 of 2003, later renumbered as Reference (LCM) No.493 of 2008. The Labour Court awarded him Rs.10,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, leading to the current challenge.
Arguments
The case involves two Special Civil Applications. In Special Civil Application No.14211 of 2013, Thakar Shivaji Kanaji, the petitioner, challenges the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Mehsana, which awarded him Rs.10,000/- as lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. The petitioner seeks reinstatement and back wages alternatively, or an enhanced compensation.
Thakar Shivaji Kanaji, the workman, worked as a laborer for the respondent from 2001 with a monthly salary of Rs.2000/-. The respondent terminated his services on 30/6/2003 without notice or notice pay, which the workman claims is a violation of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner, who referred the dispute to the Labour Court Mehsana as Reference (LCM) No.639 of 2003, later renumbered as Reference (LCM) No.493 of 2008. The Labour Court awarded him Rs.10,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, leading to the current challenge.
The workman’s submission argues that the termination was illegal, and the Labour Court should have granted reinstatement instead of the lump sum compensation. The employer, represented by Mr. K.H. Baxi, claims that the workman was employed by a security contractor, not directly by the employer, and thus the termination was not the employer’s responsibility.
Judgement
After hearing both parties and considering the evidence, the court upheld the Labour Court’s finding that the workman had worked for 240 days in the last year and that the termination was illegal. However, the court cited recent precedents where the reinstatement with full back wages was not granted automatically. Instead, the court opted for awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement, considering the substantial gap of more than 20 years since the termination.
The court ordered the employer to pay the workman Rs.50,000/- as a lump sum compensation in full and final settlement of the claim, which should be paid within two months from the date of the order. Failure to comply with the payment would result in the workman being entitled to claim interest at the rate of 9% until actual realization.
Special Civil Application No.14211 of 2013 was partly allowed, and Special Civil Application No.5706 of 2014 was dismissed. No costs were awarded.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has over 20 years of experience in various sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aadit Shah
