Gujarat High Court
Range Forest Officer vs Bipin Maharya Bagul on 7 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6250/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6250 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6682 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6813 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6875 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6897 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7002 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7025 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7219 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
RANGE FOREST OFFICER
Versus
BIPIN MAHARYA BAGUL
==========================================================
Appearance:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since the issue raised in the these petitions are similar, they are being decided by a common judgment.
2. These petitions are filed by the State under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Valsad, directing the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 65,000/- to Rs. 75,000/-, considering their tenure of service in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:07:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6250/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined benefits. As per the case of the respondents, as stated in the statement of claim, it is alleged that they have been serving in different posts for the last six to seven years. Details of all the petitions are mentioned hereinbelow:
Sr. SCA No. Date of Name and category of Remarks no. judgment respondents
1. 6250/2024 26.08.2022 Bipin Maharya Bagul- -
Watchman
2. 6682/2024 26.08.2022 Ashokbhai Madhubhai -
Deshmukh-Driver
3. 6813/2024 26.08.2022 Harichand Shivaji Lumpsum Chaudary-Watchman Compensation-
75000 Cost-5000
4. 6875/2024 26.08.2022 Harichand Vakhar Povaje- Lumpsum Watchman Compensation-
75000 Cost-5000
5. 6897/2024 26.08.2022 Budhiyabhai Kolagha Lumpsum Gagude-Watchman Compensation-
75000 Cost-5000
6. 7002/2024 26.08.2022 Mahendra Ganpat Jadhav- Lumpsum Watchman Compensation-
75000 Cost-5000
7. 7025/2024 26.08.2022 Vasanbhai Sayajibhai Lumpsum Bhoye-Watchman Compensation-
75000 Cost-5000
8. 7219/2024 26.08.2022 Mitesh Anandrao Lumpsum Chaudhary Compensation-
65000 Cost-5000 Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:07:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6250/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined
3. The petitioner appeared before the learned Labour Court and submitted that the work was allotted on the basis of the grant issued by the higher authorities and that, as there was no permanent work available, their services were terminated upon the discontinuation of the grant. It is further contended by the petitioner before the learned Labour Court that none of the respondents have completed 240 days, which is a prime requirement under Section 25B of the I.D. Act, and in the absence of the same, it cannot be said that the services of the respondents were retrenched. It was further contended that, as they have been appointed for seasonal work, they are not required to be reinstated, nor are they entitled to any relief as claimed. The learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence in detail, passed a judgment and award directing the petitioner to pay the lumpsum compensation in lieu of back wages as well as reinstatement, vide judgment and award dated 26.08.2022, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Heard the learned AGP Mr. Yuvraj Bhrahmbhatt for the petitioner-State and the learned advocate Mr. K.I. Kazi for the respondent-workman.
5. Learned AGP Mr. Bhrahmbhatt submits that no evidence was adduced before the learned Labour Court to show that any of the respondents have completed 240 days. Learned AGP Mr. Bhrahmbhatt submits that the learned Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:07:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6250/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined Labour Court has committed an error in drawing an adverse inference against the present petitioner to hold that the respondents have worked continuously and, therefore, they are entitled to the relief as claimed. Learned AGP Mr. Bhrahmbhatt further submits that the grant allotted by the higher authorities was discontinued and, as the nature of the work is seasonal, the respondents are not entitled to the relief as claimed. Learned AGP Mr. Bhrahmbhatt submits that, in the absence of any post available, the award passed by the learned Labour Court directing the payment of lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement is erroneous, and therefore, the same is required to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.K.I.Kazi for the respondents has submitted that the tarij patrak, which was produced below Exhibit 15 by the respondents, suggests that the respondents have worked. However, to establish that the respondents did not complete 240 days, no present muster roll was produced before the Court. Learned advocate Mr. K.I. Kazi submits that the respondents have discharged their duties by declaring on affidavit that the respondents have worked continuously for 240 days, and in the absence of any attendance register, salary certificate, and other documents, which are in possession of the petitioner, the burden lies on the petitioner to show that the respondents did not complete continuous service.
7. Learned advocate Mr.K.I.Kazi submits that after Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:07:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6250/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined considering the evidence in detail, the award was passed by the learned Labour Court, and therefore, no interference is required, and the petitions deserve to be dismissed.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and perusing the record, it transpires that the respondents have worked for more than six to seven years with the petitioner establishment. During the cross-examination of the witness of the petitioner, it came on record that the mark 15/1 is the copy of the rojmel, which suggests that the respondents have worked with the petitioner establishment. So far as the days for which the respondents have claimed to have worked, no muster roll was produced by the present petitioner to show that the respondents did not complete 240 days. It is further admitted by the witness of the petitioner that, at present, 38% to 40% of daily wagers are engaged. To prove that the respondents have worked for 240 days, oral evidence was adduced, and in the absence of any evidence possessed by the respondent, no other documentary evidence was adduced before the Court.
9. It is undisputed by the petitioner, during the cross-
examination, that the work was carried out by the petitioner for the respondents. Though it was projected that, upon discontinuation of the grant, the respondent- workman was disengaged from their services, it was admitted during the cross-examination that, at present, Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:07:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6250/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined 38% to 40% daily wagers are working. The above aspect suggests that, without following the procedure prescribed under the Act, the services of the respondents were terminated.
10. The learned Labour Court, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. PWD Employees, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 417 as well as in the case of Ranbir Singh vs. Executive Engineer, PWD, reported in (2021) 15 SCC 815 has allowed the Reference in favor of the respondent by granting lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement as well as back wages.
11. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Labour Court and, therefore, the petitions, being devoid of any merit, deserve to be dismissed.
12. Resultantly, these petitions are dismissed accordingly.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:07:16 IST 2025