Gujarat High Court
Dhirubhai Dahabhai Patgir vs State Of Gujarat on 7 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1904/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1904 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
DHIRUBHAI DAHABHAI PATGIR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DHAVAL PARMAR, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr.Parmar waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents.
2 This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of the respondent authority in not granting the benefit of continuity of service for the period from 31.01.1992 to 31.01.2003.
2.1 As per the case of the present petitioner, the petitioner joined the respondent as a daily wager in January 1980 and was receiving daily wages at the rate of Rs.16.50 per day. In March 1990, the Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:39:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1904/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined services of the petitioner were terminated without following the due procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the I.D. Act"
hereinafter). Consequently, a dispute was raised before the learned Labour Court by filing Reference (LCR) No.22 of 1994, wherein the learned Labour Court awarded the Reference in favour of the petitioner on 23.11.2000 by granting the relief of reinstatement with 20% back wages from 24.05.1995, i.e., the date of the Reference.
2.2 Challenging the said award, the respondent filed a petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No.8593 of 2001, wherein this Court allowed the petition by setting aside the award dated 23.11.2000, subject to the condition that the respondent officer would engage the petitioner as a daily wage labourer, and the Reference was remanded to the learned Labour Court for fresh adjudication. This Court also clarified in its order that the condition of employment imposed as an interim arrangement would not confer any right to employment on the petitioner, except entitlement to wages earned pursuant to such engagement.
2.3 Subsequently, the petitioner withdrew the Reference by filing a pursis dated 24.11.2005 on Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:39:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1904/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined the ground that he had been reinstated and did not wish to pursue the Reference further. The withdrawal was permitted by the learned Labour Court.
2.4 Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent authority seeking the benefit of continuity of service from 1990 till his actual reinstatement in 2003. As the representation was not decided, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.16171 of 2019 before this Court, wherein this Court directed the respondent authority to decide the representation dated 27.03.2019 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
2.5 Pursuant thereto, by the impugned communication dated 06.09.2022, the representation came to be rejected on the ground that the benefit of continuity of service cannot be granted except for the years in which the petitioner had actually worked for 240 days. The said communication is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3 Heard the learned advocate Mr.Jashani for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Dhaval Parmar for the Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:39:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1904/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined respondent-State.
4 Learned advocate Mr. Jashani submits that, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the respondent authority reinstated the present petitioner and subsequently granted the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 by considering continuity of service from the year 2003 onwards. However, the authority has committed an error in not extending the said benefit from the year 1990 onwards, despite the fact that the original award was passed in favour of the petitioner and he was reinstated in compliance with the Court's order.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Jashani further submits that as per the muster rolls produced before this Court, the petitioner had rendered continuous service from 1983 up to 1989. Due to the illegal termination, no work was provided from 1990 to 2003; however, the petitioner was again engaged from 2004 up to 2016.
4.2 Learned advocate Mr.Jashani submits that once the termination was held to be illegal, the petitioner ought to have been granted the benefit of continuity in service for the intervening period as well. In denying such benefit, the respondent authority has committed an error. Therefore, the Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:39:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1904/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined impugned communication deserves to be quashed and set aside, and appropriate directions may be issued to the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's service from 31.01.1990 to 31.01.2003 for the purpose of continuity.
5 Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Dhaval Parmar submits that the impugned award was earlier challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition, which came to be allowed, resulting in the setting aside of the award. Learned AGP Mr. Parmar further submits that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the employment offered to the petitioner was only as an interim arrangement, and it was specifically clarified that no benefits, except for wages, could be conferred upon the petitioner.
5.1 Learned AGP Mr. Parmar submits that subsequently, when the Reference was remanded back to the learned Labour Court, the petitioner filed a withdrawal pursis, and accordingly, the learned Reference Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the Reference proceedings. Learned AGP Mr. Parmar also submits that as per Government Resolution dated 15.09.2024, the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.2,04,892/- towards wage arrears for the period from Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:39:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1904/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined 29.10.2010 to 31.10.2014. Additionally, an amount of Rs.29,870/- was paid towards House Rent Allowance, and thus, in all, the petitioner has received a total amount of Rs.2,34,762/-.
5.2 Learned AGP Mr. Parmar submits that the petitioner has also been granted the benefits under Government Resolutions dated 17.10.1988 and 15.09.2024, considering continuity of service for more than 20 years. Learned AGP Mr. Parmar contends that as there were no directions issued by any Court of law to grant continuity of service for the disputed period, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the same, and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
6 Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respondent parties and on perusal of the record of the present petition, it emerges that the Reference filed by the present petitioner, being Reference (LCR) No.131 of 1995, was decided in favour of the petitioner on 23.01.2000 by granting the relief of reinstatement along with 20% back wages from 24.05.1995, i.e., the date of the Reference. Challenging the said award, a writ petition was filed being Special Civil Application No.8593 of 2001, wherein this Court initially granted Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:39:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1904/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined ad-interim relief vide order dated 28.09.2001. On final hearing, the petition was allowed vide order dated 18.09.2003, and the impugned award was set aside with a direction that the Range Forest Officer shall engage the workman as a daily wage labourer and post him at any place within his jurisdiction. The Reference was remanded back to the Labour Court, Surendranagar, for hearing and decision afresh. It was further clarified by this Court that the condition of employing the workman had been imposed as an interim arrangement, and such condition shall not confer any right to employment upon the workman, nor shall the workman be entitled to any benefit except the wages pursuant to such employment.
6.1 It emerges that the petitioner was taken back into service in the year 2003 in compliance with the order passed by this Court. The presence register produced at Annexure A indicates that the petitioner resumed work on 01.02.2003 and continued for 92 days up to 31.01.2004. Thereafter, pursuant to the Reference, a pursis came to be filed on 24.11.2005 stating that the petitioner was working and, therefore, did not wish to pursue the Reference, and permission to withdraw the Reference was sought and granted by the learned Labour Court vide its order dated Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:39:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1904/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined 24.11.2005. Under a misconception that the employment was offered in compliance with the award, the said pursis was filed. However, as directions had been issued by this Court clarifying that the employment was only as an interim arrangement, in the considered opinion of this Court, the benefit sought by the petitioner, i.e., continuity of service for the period from 1990, the date of termination, till 31.01.2003, i.e., the date of actual appointment pursuant to the order passed by this Court, cannot be granted. In the absence of any adjudication by the learned Labour Court after the matter was remanded, the petitioner would not be entitled to such benefit. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
7 Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:39:07 IST 2025