C/LPA/158/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 158 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1768 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 158 of 2023
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MANABHAI RUMALBHAI MACHHAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUTIK PARIKH, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 14/02/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA) Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Krutik Parikh for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr.P.C.Chaudhari for the respondent.
2. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred by the State is directed against common order dated 15.9.2021 of learned single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No.4190 of 2019 and Special Civil Application No.1768 of 2020, so far as it pertains to Special Civil Application No.1768 of 2020.
2.1 By judgment and award dated 29.11.2018, Labour Court, Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 17 20:44:17 IST 2023 C/LPA/158/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2023 Godhra delivered in Reference (T) No.37 of 2003 directed the respondent workman to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and without backwages. It was from the said judgment and award of the Labour Court that aforesaid two cross Special Civil Applications arose. Special Civil Application No.4190 of 2019 was preferred by workman in which the grievance was about non-grant of backwages, whereas the other was Special Civil Application No.1768 of 2020 which culminated into the present Letters Patent Appeal by the State.
3. The reinstatement of the workman is sought to be called in question by the State by filing present proceedings of Letters Patent Appeal.
4. The ground canvassed is that the workman had not completed 240 days of service in each year and therefore his services were not continuous within the meaning of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
5. This court considered the reasoning supplied by the Labour Court in its judgment and award which was under consideration before the learned single Judge, with regard to the aspect of completion of 240 days by workman and the finding in that regard.
5.1 In paragraph No.7, learned single Judge observed and held, "On a perusal of the award in fact it is revealed that the respondent authority has not pleaded that the workman did not complete 240 days in each year of his service and he did not render continuous Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 17 20:44:17 IST 2023 C/LPA/158/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2023 service under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "I.D.Act"). The workman is also not cross-examined to that effect before the Labour Court and thus, the Labour Court, in absence of such pleadings and documentary evidence has preciously concluded that the termination of the workman is in violation of Section 25F of the I.D.Act."
5.2 The above observations of learned single Judge in the impugned order are imminently proper in light of the facts and evidence adduced by the Labour Court.
5.3 It was also the finding recorded by learned single Judge that the workman was sought to be engaged as piece rated wages which amounted to unfair labour practice on part of the employer. From that standpoint also, the reinstatement was found to be the lawful relief granted to the workman. This court does not find any error whatsoever in the reasoning of learned single Judge and the consequential allowing of the Special Civil Application of the employer by confirming the reinstatement.
5.4 At the same time Special Civil Application No.4190 of 2019 filed by workman against the very judgment and award challenging the same in respect of non grant of backwages came to be rejected. With regard to the backwages, learned single Judge had concluded that the workman did not categorically plead that he was not gainfully employed after his termination therefore learned single Judge did not find any illegality committed by the Labour Court in denying the backwages.
6. The outweighing factor is that as stated above the Letters Patent Appeal against the very judgment and the Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 17 20:44:17 IST 2023 C/LPA/158/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2023 order insofar it is related to the challenge and award by workman for the count of non grant of backwages came to be confirmed when Special Civil Application No.4190 of 2019 by workman was rejected. The impugned judgment and award was thus already considered for its legality though in cross petition. Therefore the present Letters Patent Appeal by the State has no legs to stand. Even otherwise the court has examined the merits of the aspects raised to be found of not worthy to tenable in facts and law.
7. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the Civil Application will not survive, accordingly it is disposed of.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J) (NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) BIJOY B. PILLAI Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 17 20:44:17 IST 2023