Gujarat High Court
Dakor Municipality Through Its Chief ... vs Sunilkumar Ramanbhai Parmar on 9 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16770/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16770 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DAKOR MUNICIPALITY THROUGH ITS CHIEF OFFICER
Versus
SUNILKUMAR RAMANBHAI PARMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA A ASTHAVADI(12915) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 09/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging award passed by learned Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No.47 of 2014 dated 20.06.2024, whereby the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent without back wages.
2. The facts needs to be discussed for disposal of the case as under:
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16770/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025 undefined 2.1 The respondent was serving with the petitioner -
Municipality since year 2002 on the post of wireman on daily wages bases. As per the claim made before learned Labour Court, his service was disengaged from 22.07.2013 by the petitioner- Municipality and therefore, reference was filed before learned Labour Court being Reference (LCN) No.47 of 2014 on 04.07.2014, as despite opportunities were given, the petitioner - Municipality failed to contest before the learned Labour Court, reference was awarded in favour of the respondent on 07.09.2016. Against ex-parte award, the application under Rule 26A of the Gujarat Industrial Dispute came to be filed for restoration of the Reference being Application No.17 of 2017 which came to be rejected by learned Reference Court. Thereafter, the recovery application came to be filed for the period of 19.11.2016 to 30.06.2017 claiming the amount of Rs.18,500/- and for the period of 01.07.2017 to 28.02.2019 claiming the amount of Rs.80,000/- which was ordered in favour of the respondent and the amount was paid accordingly. Meanwhile, the petition came to be filed before this Court being Special Civil Application No.2858 of 2021 challenging the ex- parte award as well as order of rejecting the restoration Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16770/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025 undefined application which was allowed by this Court by directing the learned Reference Court to restore the reference to its original file and the petitioner was directed to adduce the evidence within a period of 4 weeks and learned Reference Court was directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of 6 weeks from the date of the order. Thereafter, the reference was restored to its original file and it was heard on merits, thereafter, learned Reference Court has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent by directing the present petitioner to reinstate the respondent without back wages which is subject of matter consideration before this Court
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Premal R. Joshi for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Aditya A. Asthavadi for the respondent.
3.1. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi submits that the learned Reference Court committed error in allowing the reference on two counts, one to establish that respondent has completed the continuous service, the muster roll was signed by the father of the respondent who was also serving as a wireman with the petitioner - Municipality, though the respondent remained absent for certain dates, however, learned Reference Court has Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16770/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025 undefined believed case of the respondent that he has completed period of 240 days as per Section 25(E) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi further submits that the second ground on which the award is challenged that no sanctioned post is available as one post which is sanctioned by the Higher Authority, is filled up with the regular employee therefore, also the award of the reinstatement cannot be implemented. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi submits that by not considering the above aspect, learned labour court has committed error and therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside and petition is required to be allowed.
4. As against the same, learned advocate Mr. Asthavadi submits that no evidence was adduced despite the sufficient opportunity was given by the learned Labour Court to establish that the Muster Roll was signed by the father and not by the respondent. Learned advocate Mr. Asthavadi submits that there was no question of sanctioned post as directions were issued to reinstate the respondent-workman to his original post i.e. daily wager.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Asthavadi has drawn the attention of this Court with regard to the pleadings/ averments made in the Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16770/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025 undefined petition and submitted that as per his own admission in the memo of the petition, the sanctioned post has not been filled up by appointing any regular employee and the same is vacant as on date. Learned advocate Mr. Asthavadi submits that considering the above, the reference was awarded in favour of the respondent, therefore, no interference is required and petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Having considered the arguments made by learned advocates for respective parties and considering the reasons assigned by learned Labour Court, it transpires from the record that initially reference which was awarded ex-parte in favour of the respondent which was restored by this Court with direction to adduce the evidence within a period of 4 weeks and to conclude the proceedings within a period of 6 weeks. The reasons further reflect that the sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner - employer to adduce the evidence. However, only bare pleadings were raised that Muster Roll was signed by the father and not by the respondent. This Court is of the view that pleadings cannot be replaced by evidence and as petitioner fails to cross-examine the workman to establish that the respondent has not completed 240 days and therefore, he is Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16770/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025 undefined not entitled for the relief which was granted. So far as the ground with regard to the sanctioned vacant post is concerned, from the averment as pointed out by the learned advocate Mr. Asthavadi for the respondent, it is not the case that the post is not available and even if post is not available then also the directions were issued to reinstate the respondent to his original post i.e. the daily wager and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no contention with regard to the sanctioned post would not help to the petitioner to establish that impugned award deserves to be set aside.
6. Considering the overall circumstances, this Court is of the view that petition being devoid of merits, as no error has been committed by the learned Labour Court in awarding the reference in favour of the respondent, same deserves to be dismissed.
7. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Jan 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 21:22:09 IST 2025