Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat Through Office Of ... vs Virendrasinh Dalpatsinh Parmar on 7 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4481/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4481 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH OFFICE OF ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL
CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
Versus
VIRENDRASINH DALPATSINH PARMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the learned labour court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.496 of 2015 whereby, the present petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent workman without back wages and with continuity of service.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Apr 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 08 22:56:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4481/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined respondent herein was working with petitioner organization as a Rojamdar since 01.12.2006 and drawing Rs.219/- per month. His services were put an end to on 25.12.2014 and challenging the said termination, the reference came to be filed before the learned reference court which was registered as Reference (LCA) No.496 of 2015. Learned reference court after considering the submissions made by both the parties has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent on 05.10.2024 which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned AGP Mr.Yuvraj Brahmbhatt for the State, 3.1. Learned AGP Mr.Brahmbhatt submits that the respondent had not completed 240 days in the year 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2013-14. Learned AGP Mr.Brahmbhatt submits that in view of the back door entry and not fulfilling the requirement as per the recruitment rules, the service of the respondent was terminated orally. Learned AGP Mr.Brahmbhatt further states that at the time of terminating the service, one month notice and retrenchment compensation was paid, however, without considering the same the impugned Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Apr 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 08 22:56:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4481/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined award was passed, therefore same is required to be set aside and the petition is required to be allowed.
4. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned AGP Mr.Brahmbhatt, it appears from the record that as per the claim made by the respondent workman he was serving with the petitioner department since 01.12.2006 till 25.12.2014. To prove his continuity of service, in addition of his disclosure in the chief examination, the application below Exh.6 was filed seeking production of the relevant documents. In compliance of the order passed in production application, the petitioner has produced the muster roll which is reproduced hereinbelow..........page 41 No. of years in Sr. Number of Years of operation(work) which 240 days Remarks No. days were completed 1 01/12/2006 to 30/11/2007 270.5 1 2 01/12/2007 to 30/11/2008 203 3 01/12/2008 to 30/11/2009 246 2 4 01/12/2009 to 28/10/2010 168 29/10/2010 to 30/11/2010 22 5 01/12/2010 to 30/11/2011 217 6 01/12/2011 to 30/11/2012 152 7 01/12/2012 to 30/11/2013 222.5 8 01/12/2013 to 30/11/2014 301 3 9 01/12/2014 to 31/12/2014 20 Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Apr 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 08 22:56:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4481/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined
5. Contention raised by the present petitioner that continuity of service cannot be considered, as he did not complete 240 days in some of the years. To deal with that contention the provision of section 25(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is required to be referred to which is reproduced herein below:-
"25B. Definition of continuous service.
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
(b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Apr 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 08 22:56:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4481/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined
(ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case."
6. As per the above provisions, if the employee has completed 240 days in a preceding year, then it can be said that the requirement of section 25(b) is fulfilled. In the instant case, as per the allegation made in the statement of claim, services of the respondent was orally terminated on 25.12.2014 and as per the chart reproduced hereinabove, the employee has completed 301 days from 2013-14. In that background it cannot be said that, completion of continuity of service is not done.
7. The another contention is that at the time of retrenchment, retrenchment compensation is paid alongwith the notice. The learned reference court has observed in the impugned award that only contention is raised that payment of retrenchment compensation is made, however, on referring to the submissions, it is observed that the compensation would be deposited in the account. However, no evidence was adduced to show that the compensation has been infact paid. Learned reference court after considering the evidence, more particularly the muster roll, has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent by granting the relief of Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Apr 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 08 22:56:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4481/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined reinstatement without back wages and with continuity of service. This Court is of the view that no error has been committed by the learned reference court in passing the impugned award, therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Apr 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 08 22:56:02 IST 2025