Common Oral Order

Bhargav D. Karia, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.I.G.Joshi for the appellant and learned advocate Ms.Anuradha G. Rathod for the respondents.

2. By these Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, the appellant has challenged orders dated 08.04.2025 passed in Special Civil Application Nos.4311 of 2025 and 4232 of 2025. The petitions preferred by the appellant were dismissed by upholding the Judgment and Award dated 24.10.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court granting lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in Reference (L.C.A) No.108 of 2017 which was challenged in Special Civil Application No.4311 of 2025 and Judgment and Award dated 24.10.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference (L.C.A) No.107 of 2017 whereby, the Labour Court had awarded Rs.6,00,000/- for the similarly situated persons having service of about two years more than the workman who was awarded Rs.2,00,000/-. The said Award was challenged in Special Civil Application No.4232 of 2025 by the appellant.

3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.I.G.Joshi for the appellant submitted that so far as the workman of Letters Patent Appeal No.784 of 2025 is concerned, the appellant has tendered a cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of the workman, to the learned advocate for the respondent-workman and therefore, the order passed by the Labour Court and upheld by the learned Single Judge is complied with and therefore, under instructions, does not press the Letters Patent Appeal No.784 of 2025.

          4.1. So far as the Letters Patent Appeal No.785 of 2025 is concerned, learned advocate Mr.I.G.Joshi for the appellant submitted that the learned Labour Court has not given any justification for Award of Rs.6,00,000/- as the respondent-workman has worked for about 14 years whereas, the similarly situated workman in the other matter who has worked for about 12 years, is awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

          4.2. Learned advocate Mr.I.G.Joshi submitted that the amount of lumpsum compensation awarded by the learned Labour Court and upheld by the learned Single Judge may be revised to any suitable amount considering the period of service rendered by the respondent-workman and has left the reduction of amount at the discretion of the Court.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms.Anuradha Rathod for the respondent submitted that she is objecting to any reduction of the amount of Award passed by the learned Labour Court which is upheld by the learned Single Judge. It was pointed out that the learned Labour Court after considering the fact that the respondent was of young age and had rendered services for about 13 years, awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. It was also pointed out by learned advocate Ms.Anuradha Rathod that the learned Labour Court has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corp. & Ors Versus Gitam Singh reported in (2014) 11 SCC 214 for award of interest. It was therefore submitted that the appellant has not paid the amount as awarded by the learned Labour Court and therefore, this Appeal is required to be dismissed summarily.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, it appears that the respondent- workman is aged about 55 years as per the affidavit filed on 13th September, 2025 and he has also shown his unwillingness to be reinstated in service as per the offer given by the appellant.

7. It was further averred in the aforesaid affidavit that he is engaged in the miscellaneous work and is satisfied with his present employment. Such affidavit filed in view of the order passed by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.S.Supehia and Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.T.Vachhani) on 07.08.2025 reads as under :

          "1. I say and submit that I was employed with the appellant company in January 2003 as an Operator. I was illegally terminated on 26/08/2016 without being given any notice or retrenchment compensation. I challenged the said termination before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference No. 107/2017. The Labour Court decided the reference on merits and passed an award on 24/10/2024, granting me a lump sum compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. At the time of termination, I was drawing a salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month.

          2. I further submit that the Hon'ble Court directed me to file an affidavit regarding whether I am ready and willing to be reinstated in service or not. The Hon'ble Court passed the said order on 07/08/2025, and accordingly, I am filing this affidavit in compliance with the order.

          3. At present, I am 55 years old. I am engaged in miscellaneous work and am satisfied with my present employment. Therefore, I am not ready and willing to be reinstated in the appellant company. It is also pertinent to state that the appellant company has not paid me gratuity or other consequential benefits. Moreover, in my deposition before the Labour Court, I had already stated that I am not willing for reinstatement. Hence, in view of the above facts, I most respectfully pray that this issue may kindly be considered by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice."

8. Therefore, considering the affidavit filed by the respondent-workman, it appears that the respondent-workman is engaged in the miscellaneous work and is satisfied with his present employment and his only intention is to get the lumpsum compensation. Therefore, considering the facts of the case as well as the Award passed by the Labour Court for the similarly situated person whereby, Labour Court has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for service of about 12 years and the fact that the respondent herein, has rendered the service for about 13 to 14 years, we deem it fit to reduce the compensation awarded by the learned Labour Court to Rs.3,00,000/- which shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent within a period of two weeks from today, failing which, the interest as awarded by the learned Labour Court would be payable at the rate of 9% per annum.

9. Both the Appeals are accordingly disposed of.