Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bhayabhai Hardasbhai Rada on 3 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16202/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16202 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
BHAYABHAI HARDASBHAI RADA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR.KRUTARTH K PANDYA(7092) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 03/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1.
2. This petition is filed by the State challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajkot in reference (I.T.) Case No.124 of 2016 dated 07.12.2019 whereby, the directions were issued upon the present petitioners to grant the benefit of Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Feb 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 04 22:36:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16202/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined G.R. dated 17.10.1988 from the year 2012 and the interregnum period from the year 2012 to date of award i.e. 07.12.2019 for the notional benefit.
3. Heard learned AGP Mr. Brahmbhatt for the State and learned advocate Mr. Pandya for the respondent No.1. 3.1 Learned AGP Mr. Brahmbhatt states that reference was filed before learned Labour Court, Rajkot stating that the respondent is entitled for the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 from the date of completion of 240 days, which was decided in favour of the respondent. Learned AGP Mr. Brahmbhatt submits that present respondent was serving as a daily wager and has not been recruited after due process and has not served continuously for 240 days. Learned AGP Mr. Brahmbhatt submits that at present work was given to the employee through contractor and therefore, no benefit under G.R. dated 17.10.1988 can be given to the present respondent. Learned AGP Mr. Brahmbhatt submit that without considering the same, the award is passed in favour of the respondent, therefore, same is required to be set aside and the petition is required to be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that as on Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Feb 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 04 22:36:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16202/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined date also the respondent is working with the petitioner establishment. On relying upon presence roster and the wage register, learned Labour Court has awarded the reference in favour of the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that as per the evidence adduced by the petitioner, he completed 240 days in the year 2012 and therefore, learned Reference Court has granted the benefit from the year 2012 onwards. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that at present though the work was taken under the different contractors but the wages are paid less than minimum. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that after considering the evidence in detail, the award is passed in favour of the respondent, therefore, no interference is required and the petition is required to be dismissed.
5. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the parties as well as evidence adduced before the learned Reference Court, it transpires that as per Mark 13/1, the respondent has completed 303 days in the year 2012, though the claim was made by the respondent that he is serving as a daily wager since 26.07.2005 but the learned Reference Court has awarded the reference relying on the evidence adduced by the Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Feb 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 04 22:36:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16202/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined present petitioner. Though, so called contract agreement was called by the learned reference Court, however, no documentary evidence was placed to show that present respondent is the employee of the contractor. Learned Reference Court, after considering the evidence placed by the present petitioner, has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent by granting the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 from the year 2012 and it was also directed to consider the interregnum period i.e. from the year 2012 to year 2019 for the notional benefit and this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. The impugned order is hereby confirmed and the benefits to the respondent-employee shall be paid within a period of 12 weeks from date of this order.
6. In that view of the matter, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Feb 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 04 22:36:53 IST 2025