C/SCA/10237/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10237 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10238 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10239 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10240 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10241 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10242 of 2017
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)
Versus
KANITBHAI SABURBHAI PRAJAPATI & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AYAAN PATEL, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 13/03/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Special Civil Applications are filed by the State of Gujarat against the impugned judgment and awards passed by the learned Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference Nos.48, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 54 of 2007 whereby the respondent workmen have been granted reinstatement along with continuity in service and with 25% back wages. Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 15 20:37:48 IST 2023
C/SCA/10237/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023
2. The brief facts common to all the cases are that all the respondent workmen were working as Class IV employees in the office of the petitioners since more than 12 years and they all were terminated on 27.03.2006. Aggrieved, all the respondent workmen preferred Reference (LCM) Case Nos.48, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 54 of 2007 in the Labour Court at Nadiad. No documentary evidence came to be adduced by either of the parties. Based on the oral evidence, the learned Labour Court disposed of all the References holding that there was violation of Section 25(f), (g) and (h) of the Industrial Disputes Act and directed the reinstatement of the respondent workmen on their original posts with continuity in service and 25% back wages for the interregnum period.
3. In the present cases, the learned Advocate for the respondent workmen Mr.U.T. Mishra submits that the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application 11291 of 2018 and other allied matters and also in Special Civil Application 12166 of 2018 has dismissed the writ Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 15 20:37:48 IST 2023 C/SCA/10237/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023 petitions preferred by the petitioners herein. He submits that the respondents workmen in those cases as well as in the present cases, are similarly situated and were working for the petitioners. They all were terminated on the same day i.e. 27.03.2006. He submits that, therefore, several References came to be filed together in the Labour Court at Nadiad. He submits that though individual awards have been passed, but similar reliefs have have been granted to all the respondents workmen i.e. reinstatement on the original posts along with continuity in service. He further submits that in those cases decided by the Co-ordinate Benches, since the References were dismissed for default, and thereafter, restored after a long time, therefore, no back wages were awarded in those cases. He submits that, however, in the present cases, there were no dismissal for default of the Reference cases before the Labour Court, and therefore, in these present cases, the respondents workmen have been awarded 25% back wages.
4. Mr.Ayan Patel, learned AGP appearing for the Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 15 20:37:48 IST 2023 C/SCA/10237/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023 petitioners does not dispute the fact that the respondent workmen in the cases decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court were working for the petitioners in the same office and were terminated on the same day. He submits that all the workmen were Class IV employees. He further does not dispute that all these workmen had preferred similar References before the Labour Court, Nadiad which came to be disposed of individually. He submits that he has verified the fact situation with respect to the respondent workmen and submits that they all were working in the same office and were similarly placed. He submits that in those cases, no back wages have been awarded. However, in the present cases, 25% back wages have been awarded. He, therefore, submits that in the present cases also, no back wages should have been awarded as done in the case of the other respondent workmen in the cases decided by the other Co-ordinate Benches of this Court.
5. Mr.U.T. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondents workmen submits that in the present cases, there were no Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 15 20:37:48 IST 2023 C/SCA/10237/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023 dismissal for default of the Reference pending before the Labour Court, and therefore, in the present cases, he submits that the Labour Court has rightly granted the back wages to the extent of 25% in view of the violation of Section 25 (f), (g) and (h) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He, therefore, submits that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and awards.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
7. It is not in dispute that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the Special Civil Application No.11291 of 2018 and other allied cases by common judgment and order dated 26.02.2021. Thereafter, another Special Civil Application No.12166 of 2018 was also dismissed vide order dated 07.10.2021 by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is not in dispute that the present respondent workmen are similarly situated employees and were terminated on the same day i.e. 27.03.2006. It is further not Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 15 20:37:48 IST 2023 C/SCA/10237/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023 disputed they were all serving in the office of the petitioners.
8. In view of the aforesaid observations and the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court as above mentioned, as well as considering the fact that no documentary evidence was led by the petitioners in the Reference proceedings before the Labour Court, the findings arrived at in the impugned orders need no interference. The present Special Civil Applications are devoid of merits and the same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) ALI Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 15 20:37:48 IST 2023