0

The Gujarat High Court finds that reinstatement is not feasible after such an extended period, but the awarded compensation needs improvement. Therefore, the court enhances the compensation amount to Rs.1,50,000/- to ensure justice.

Blog , , ,

Case- Gordhanbhai Dhamabhai Patel vs Deputy Range Forest Officer
Decided on: 27th  June 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice Rajendra M. Sareen
Introduction

The petitioner worked as Beat Guard in the respondent department from 1/1/1982, and his services came to be terminated orally on 1/12/1990 without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner workman has filed a petition challenging the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court in a reference case. The petitioner had been working with the respondent since 1982 but was terminated without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent did not appear before the Labour Court, and the case proceeded ex-parte. The Labour Court awarded the petitioner a lump sum compensation of Rs.20,001/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.

Judgement

The petitioner’s advocate argues that the award is illegal, improper, and contrary to the Industrial Disputes Act and established legal principles. They contend that the termination was unlawful and, therefore, reinstatement should have been granted instead of just compensation. They also argue that the delay in filing the reference was due to the petitioner’s lack of knowledge about the law of limitation and that reinstatement should be allowed solely based on the hold. The advocate further points out that the respondent never claimed that the petitioner’s appointment was illegal, but the Labour Court denied reinstatement based on this.

On the other hand, the respondent’s advocate argues that the Labour Court rightly awarded compensation since the respondent did not defend the case properly and the judgment and award were passed ex-parte.

The court found that the petitioner’s services were terminated illegally, and there was a delay in filing the reference. While reinstatement cannot be granted after 18 years, considering the long time the case has been pending and the fact that the respondent did not challenge the award, the court decides to enhance the compensation from Rs.20,001/- to Rs.1,50,000/- to meet the ends of justice.

The court also refers to previous judgments by the Supreme Court, which state that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and that compensation may be appropriate in certain circumstances, such as when the employee has been out of work for a long time or when the employee’s services cannot be reinstated due to various reasons.

“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

Click here to view Judgement

0

Madras High Court Says Certiorari writ should not intervene in lower court rulings unless a distinct legal error is evident.

Blog, blog , , ,

Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Assistant Manager – Administration,   and Manager of Hotel Tamil Nadu

                            VS

Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Coimbatore and S. Saroja Devi.

DATED: 12.06.2023

Coram: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

Citation: Writ Petition No.20259 of 2014

Facts

The petitioner, the management, filed a case against Smt. S. Saroja Devi, a housekeeper responsible for overseeing the work of sweepers and sanitary workers. The management accused her of not fulfilling her duties and issued multiple charge memorandums. After a specific incident, she was suspended pending an inquiry and later dismissed after a domestic inquiry.

Saroja Devi raised an industrial dispute and attempted conciliation, but it failed. The matter was then taken to the Labour Court, Coimbatore, where the court questioned the fairness of the domestic inquiry. The court concluded that the inquiry was not conducted properly and gave the management an opportunity to present additional evidence.

The petitioners argue that S. Saroja Devi was terminated for just cause, and that the Labour Court did not give them a fair hearing. The respondents argue that S. Saroja Devi was not terminated for just cause, and that the Labour Court gave the petitioners a fair hearing.

Issues

Whether S.Saroja Devi was terminated for just cause?

Whether the Labour Court gave the petitioners a fair hearing?

Whether the writ of certiorari can be used to quash orders that are made by Labour Courts?

Arguments

Arguments of the petitioners:

The petitioners argued that S.Saroja Devi was terminated for just cause. They stated that she was terminated for serious misconduct, including absenteeism, insubordination, and theft.

The petitioners also argued that the Labour Court did not give them a fair hearing. They stated that the Labour Court did not consider all of the evidence that they presented, and that the Labour Court’s decision was based on a mistake of law.

The petitioners argue that the writ of certiorari can be used to quash orders that are made by Labour Courts if there is a clear error of law.

Arguments of the respondents:

The respondents argued that S.Saroja Devi was not terminated for just cause. They stated that she was terminated for reasons that were not related to her job performance, and that the termination was therefore unfair.

The respondents also argued that the Labour Court gave the petitioners a fair hearing. They stated that the Labour Court considered all of the evidence that was presented, and that the Labour Court’s decision was based on a sound assessment of the facts.

The respondents argue that the writ of certiorari should not be used to interfere with the decisions of Labour Courts unless there is a gross injustice.

Case analysis

During the enquiry, the petitioner management presented witnesses, but one of them inadvertently supported the duty of the Sweepers cum Sanitary Workers rather than the management’s case. The other evidence provided by the management was considered general and did not support their argument. The witness involved in issuing the suspension order did not specify any room defects, leading the labour court to believe the charge was an afterthought. As for the remaining charges, there was only oral evidence without additional support. Based on the evaluation of evidence, the labour court concluded that the charges were not proven. Thus, the labour court found no issues with reinstating the petitioner with full benefits. However, since the employee did not show efforts to find a new job, the court granted only 25% of back wages. S. saroja devi challenged this and pleaded for 75% of back wages.

Judgement

The High Court upheld the Labour Court’s decision. The bench found that the petitioners had not provided any evidence to support their claims and that the Labour Court had been correct to find that the respondent had been treated unfairly.

The bench concluded its judgment by stating the following:

“In the absence of any evidence to support the petitioners’ claims, we are unable to find that the respondent was terminated for just cause. We therefore uphold the order of the Labour Court directing the reinstatement of the respondent and directing the petitioners to pay her back wages.”

The high court ordered that instead of 25% back wages, the management is directed to pay 50% back wages to S.Saroja Devi (employee) and in all other respects the award of the labour court stands confirmed. The management is directed to settle the back wages within a period of twelve weeks.

Conclusion

The High Court’s decision in the case of S.Saroja Devi is a mixed bag. It is a setback for the petitioners, but a victory for S.Saroja Devi. The decision sends a message to employers in Tamil Nadu that they cannot terminate employees without providing evidence to support their claims. The writ of certiorari is a powerful tool that can be used to quash orders that are made by lower courts, however this case suggested that the writ of certiorari should not be used to interfere with the decisions of lower courts unless there is a clear error of law. This principle is crucial for upholding the rule of law, which ensures that all individuals, including the government, are bound by the law. If higher courts could intervene in lower court decisions without clear legal errors, it would undermine the fundamental principle of the rule of law.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a 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.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWS BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement