Gujarat High Court
Dwarka Municipality vs Jitendra S Kaardiya on 7 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 352 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
DWARKA MUNICIPALITY
Versus
JITENDRA S KAARDIYA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Labour Court, Jamnagar in Recovery 33(C)(2) Application No.50 of 2018 dated 16.07.2024, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay the amount of Rs.3,26,400/- towards the benefit of the regularization, which was awarded by the learned Reference Court in Reference (IT) No.104 of 2012.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the reference, Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:20:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined being Reference (IT) No.104 of 2012 filed by the workman claiming the benefit of regularization of his service, which came to be allowed by the learned Reference Court on 28.02.2017, directing the present petitioner - Municipality to regularize him on Class-IV post on completion of 240 days and to pay actual benefits from the date of award and interregnum period was considered for notional benefits. As the award passed by the learned Labour Court has not been implemented, therefore, recovery application came to be filed which was ordered in favour of the respondent - workman and the same is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dinesh Gautam for learned advocate Mr. Deepak Sanchela and learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru appearing on advance copy for respondent.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Gautam submits that the recovery Court could not have been exercised its power under Section33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by directing the present petitioner to pay the benefit of the regularization. Learned advocate Mr. Gautam submits that as the claim made by the respondent - workman has been disputed, instead of Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:20:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined adjudicating the claim by filing the separate, reference the recovery application came to be filed, which was allowed. In view of above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Gautam has requested to set aside the impugned order to allow the petition.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru appearing for the workman on advance copy, has submitted that as the award passed by the learned Reference Court has been confirmed up to the Division Bench of this Court, no error has been committed by the learned Labour Court in allowing the recovery application.
6. Having considered the arguments made by the learned advocates for the parties, it emerges from the record that reference, which was filed by the workman being Reference (IT) No.104 of 2012 claiming the benefit of regularization on the post of Class-IV employee on completion on 240 days, was awarded in favour of the workman on 28.02.2017. Challenging the above order, petition is filed before this Court being Special Civil Application No. 3825 of 2021, wherein this Court has confirmed the award passed by the learned Reference Court by dismissing the petition at admission stage. Challenging the order passed by this Court dismissing the petition, intra Court appeal came to be Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:20:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/352/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined filed being LPA No. 435 of 2025, wherein also Division Bench of this Court has confirmed the order passed by the learned Reference Court as well as order passed by learned Single Judge. This Court is of the view that when the benefit of the regularization, which was granted by the learned Reference Court, was confirmed up to Division Bench of this Court and as on date it was not carried further, no error has been committed by learned Labour Court in directing the present petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.3,26,400/-, the benefit which flows from the award of the reference.
7. Resultantly present petition deserves to be dismissed. Hence, present petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:20:29 IST 2025