Gujarat High Court
Executive Engineer vs Hamirbhai Meghabhai Gohil on 3 February, 2025
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/508/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 508 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21123 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 508 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 508 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR.
Versus
HAMIRBHAI MEGHABHAI GOHIL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NILESH M SHAH(780) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 03/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants being Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 21:53:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/508/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgement and order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition. The respondent herein had prayed before the learned Single Judge to quash and set aside the order dated 01.09.2015 to the extent of not granting benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 with effect from 01.10.1988 to him. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgement and order allowed the petition and directed the respondents to confer the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 with effect from 01.10.1988 notionally upto 29.03.2007 and thereafter to give difference of pay from 30.03.2007 to 30.06.2017. The respondents were also directed to pay arrears accordingly and the retirement benefits such as pension, gratuity and leave encashment etc.
2. The facts of the case have been enunciated by the learned Single Judge in the judgement and order and therefore for the sake of brevity we reproduce the same Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 21:53:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/508/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined hereinbelow:
"3.1. The Petitioner was employed by the respondent No.3 as a daily wager labourer since 1978. The service of the petitioner was orally terminated by the respondent no.3 from 28.02.1985. Hence, petitioner had raised the said dispute, which had been adjudicated in Reference (LCS) No.115/2000. The respondent no.3 had also orally terminated other three co-employees hence, they had also raised the disputes for the same. The Labour Court, Surendrangar by a common award dated 29.03.2007, partly allowed the said reference by directing respondent nos.2 and 3 to reinstate the petitioner and other three co-employees on their original posts without back wages.
3.2. Thereafter, against the said common award dated 29.03.2007, the respondent nos.2 and 3 had filed Special Civil Application No.1607 of 2009 to 1610 of 2010, which had been withdrawn by order dated 24.02.2009 to file restoration application before the Labour Court. Thereafter, the respondent nos.2 and 3 had filed Restoration Application being (ID) Misc. Application No.8 of 2009 before the Labour Court, Surendranagar against the petitioner, which was dismissed by judgment dated 30.06.2010 on the ground of delay. Hence, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 had filed Special Civil Application No.11455 of 2010, which was allowed by an order dated 15.10.2010 in which this Court had directed the Labour Court, Surendrangar to hear and decide (ID) Misc. Application No.8 of 2009 on merits. Misc. Application No.5 of 11 (Old No.8 of 2009) was decided on merits and was dismissed by Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 21:53:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/508/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined judgment dated 13.04.2012. Against the said judgment, respondent nos.2 and 3 had filed Special Civil Application No.11486 of 2012, which is dismissed by judgment dated 10.01.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for reinstatement to the respondent no.3 on 11.02.2013, but however, the respondent no.3 did not reinstate the petitioner. Ultimately, by the order dated 01.07.2013 the respondent no.3 reinstated the petitioner on 01.07.2013.
3.3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Recovery Application No.115/12 for claiming wages of Rs.2,02,082-40 for the period from 06.04.2007 to 30.06.2012 as per minimum wage, which was partly allowed by judgment dated 30.09.2013. The petitioner had also filed Recovery Application No.46/13 for claiming wages of Rs.46,144=80 for the period from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 as per minimum wage, which has been allowed by judgment dated 17.03.2015."
3. What is apparent from the conspectus of facts is that the only ground on which the respondent was denied the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 from his initial date of appointment was that the Labour Court vide award dated 29.03.2007 while examining the case of the present petitioner and the co-employee namely Danabhai Kalabhai in Reference (LCS) No.184 of 2000 had directed the respondent authorities to reinstate Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 21:53:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/508/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined him on his original post but failed to record the direction with regard to continuity of service.
3.1 The co-employee Shri Danabhai Kalabhai had approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.18154 of 2015 claiming the same relief as claimed by the respondent herein and the said benefits were conferred upon him. Thereafter, the appellant had approached the Division Bench of this court by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 485 of 2017 against the order passed in Special Civil Application No.18154 of 2015 in the case of the co-employee. The co-ordinate bench of this court confirmed the findings of the learned Single Judge and rejected the appeal.
4. Today when the appeal is taken up for hearing, Mr. Nilesh Shah, learned advocate for the respondent workman points out that the decision of the co-ordinate bench rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 485 of 2017 in the case of the co-employee of the respondent workman was challenged by way of an SLP before the Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 21:53:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/508/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined Apex Court. The Apex Court vide order dated 22.01.2024 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the findings of the Division Bench.
5. Thus, the findings as well as the directions issued by this court in case of the co-employee who was also a party to the original reference filed by the respondent workman have become final and therefore the same shall govern the case of the present respondent as well. We therefore find that there is no merit in the appeal so as to deny the benefits to the respondent workman which already have been given to said Shri Danabhai Kalabhai.
6. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed.
Rule is discharged. Interim relief if any shall stand vacated. Connected civil applications shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) (D. M. DESAI,J) DIVYA Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 21:53:25 IST 2025