Saurashtra Kamdar Kalyan Sangathan ... vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Saurashtra Kamdar Kalyan Sangathan ... vs State Of Gujarat on 11 February, 2025

Author: A.S. Supehia

Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi

                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/LPA/305/2025                                     ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025

                                                                                                                 undefined




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                 R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 305 of 2025
                             In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10854 of 2024
                                                   With
                                CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
                                In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 305 of 2025
                      =============================================
                             SAURASHTRA KAMDAR KALYAN SANGATHAN CHANDUBHAI
                                            KALABHAI RATHOD
                                                  Versus
                                         STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      =============================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR. MANOJ T DANAK(6264) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      MS SHRUTI R. DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
                      =============================================
                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
                              and
                              HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                         Date : 11/02/2025
                                           ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and decided today itself.

2. The matter requires consideration. Hence, Admit. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of admission on behalf of the respondents.

3. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25.07.2024 in Special Civil Application No.10854 of 2024, whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the captioned writ petition and confirmed the order of the learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (I.T.) No.57 of 2021 dated 19.04.2024.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/305/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined

4. Learned advocate Mr.M. T. Danak, at the outset, appearing for the appellant has pointed that the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge and has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not passed the reasoned order dealing with the contentions raised by the appellant challenging the award dated 19.04.2024 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (I.T.) No.57 of 2021.

5. Learned advocate Mr.M.T. Danak, has also submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the appellant has put his long service with the respondents and the respondents terminated service of the appellant without there being any reason. He has further submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the submissions of the appellant that the appellant was appointed after following due procedure of recruitment. He has rendered his service like permanent employee but he has been paid wages below the minimum wages. He has put his continuous service with the respondents and he has completed 240 days, however the learned Single Judge has not considered anything while passing the impugned order. He has further submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that the appellant was terminated from the service and he was reinstated by the order of learned Labour Court vide order dated 08.04.2017.

6. Learned advocate Mr.M.T. Danak, has also submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in not considering the fact that the appellant is considered as daily rated employee and Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Tue Feb 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 11 22:58:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/305/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined now his salary is being made as per days that he has worked and he is not availing benefits of holidays and on that day, he was considered as absent on duty and his salary was deducted for those days.

7. Learned advocate Mr.Danak, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered that the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. PWD Union, 2013 (2) GLH 683, categorically held that Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is applicable to all the departments of the Government and therefore, the case of present appellant is squarely covered as per the order passed by the Supreme Court, hence, considering the length of service and the directions rendered by the Supreme Court, the appellant is entitled to get the minimum pay-scale and other benefits as ordered. Learned advocate Mr.Danak, has further submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that the earlier proceedings, which was withdrawn by the present appellant but in that purshis, there was no mention that on what condition the said Reference came to be withdrawn. It is urged that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge may be quashed and set aside.

8. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the impugned order is appropriately passed by the learned Single Judge and the same may not be interfered with. She has also referred to the order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (I.T.) No.57 of 2021. It is urged that this Court may not be interfered with.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/305/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined

9. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties.

10. It is the case of the original employee - appellant that despite rendering his long service with the respondents, he has not been paid wages below minimum wages, even after putting continuous service after completion of 240 days. It is also not in dispute that he was terminated from service and thereafter, he has been reinstated in service in view of the award passed by the Labour Court dated 08.04.2017 in Reference (LCJ) No.45 of 2013 and thereafter upon his reinstatement, he has rendered continuous service from 30.05.2013 to 12.12.2016. There are various other contentions also raised by the present appellant - original petitioner in the writ petition assailing the order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (I.T.) No.57 of 2021. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by observing in paragraph No.5, which reads as under : -

"5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. Considering the submissions and considering the order passed by the Tribunal, the findings recorded by the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that there is no any infirmity or illegality committed by the Tribunal. It is also relevant to note herein that in paragraph 19, the Tribunal has considered all the relevant aspects and also referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of R.M. Yellatti Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer, reported in [2006] 1 SCC

106. Considering all these aspects, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is not required to be interfered with and the present petition being devoid of any merits deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs."

NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/305/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined

11. Thus, we do not find any discussion on the aforementioned facts, neither the findings of the Tribunal nor the service details of the appellant - workman has been discussed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has cryptically observed that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are considered and no infirmity or illegality is found in such findings.

12. We do no subscribe to the observations recorded by the learned Single Judge. Though the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties are noted by the learned Single Judge, however while recording the final order, there is no discussion in this regard. Hence, we are inclined to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the matter is ordered to be remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication.

13. With these observations, the present Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. The matter is ordered to be remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication. Registry shall list the captioned writ petition before the Bench assigned such Roster.

14. As a sequel, the connected civil application also stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) Sd/-

(GITA GOPI,J) MAHESH/18 Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Tue Feb 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 11 22:58:03 IST 2025