Gujarat High Court
Patdi Municipality vs Gautambhai Chanabhai Miyavara on 4 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12282/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12282 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
PATDI MUNICIPALITY
Versus
GAUTAMBHAI CHANABHAI MIYAVARA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 04/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court on 24.02.2025 in Reference (T) LCS No.05 of 2020, whereby the learned Labour Court has granted the relief of reinstatement without back wages.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the dispute was raised before the learned Reference Court by filing the statement of claim, alleging that the petitioner - Nagarpalika had called the applications from the candidates for the post of Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 22:28:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12282/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined Drivers and as the respondent was possessing a heavy license, the respondent applied for the same. After following due procedure, his appointment was made on the post of Driver on 01.08.2014, at a fixed salary of Rs.3,500/-. The petitioner - Nagarpalika has also passed a resolution confirming the appointment of the respondent on 10.12.2014. Thereafter, as respondent filed a leave application for two months on 15.04.2019. The respondent was informed by the concerned Chief Officer of the Nagarpalika that he may not come from tomorrow, raising the dispute of illegal termination. The reference was filed and the learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence adduced, awarded the reference in favor of the respondent by granting the relief which is mentioned hereinabove, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sanchela for the petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Sanchela submits that the appointment of the petitioner was made for a period of 11 months and that was also on fixed pay. Learned advocate Mr. Sanchela submits that after 15.04.2019, on completion of the Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 22:28:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12282/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined leave period, the respondent did not report for duty and therefore, Nagarpalika has engaged another Driver and as on date, there is no post available with the Nagarpalika. Learned advocate Mr. Sanchela submits that as the respondent himself has abandoned the service, he is not entitled to the relief of reinstatement as granted by the learned Labour Court and therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocate Mr. Sanchela and on referring to the reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court, it emerges that the reference came to be filed by the respondent claiming that he was serving on the post of Driver since 01.08.2014. He was getting a monthly wage, as reflected from the bank statement as well as the wage register produced below Exh.56. It also emerges from the record that the respondent filed an application for leave on 15.04.2019, which was produced below Mark 6/5. Thereafter, it is alleged that the respondent reported on duty, but he was not permitted to do so. It is contended by the present petitioner that the respondent himself has abandoned the duty. However, from the Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 22:28:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12282/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined communication, which is addressed on 01.08.2019, produced below Mark 6/6, it transpires that the respondent tried to resume duty, but he was not permitted to resume duty. It also emerges from the record that to substantiate the argument with regard to the abandonment of the service, no documentary evidence was placed on record and during the cross-examination of the witness of the petitioner, it is admitted that no notice was issued, neither any departmental inquiry was initiated, regarding remaining unauthorizedly absent or abandoning the service. It is also admitted that the letter issued by the respondent dated 01.08.2019 remained unreplied and the notice which is produced below Exh.48 was also not responded. It emerges from overall the facts that the respondent was terminated from the service without following due procedure under the Act and therefore, the learned Court is justified in holding that the termination is illegal.
6. From the cross-examination of the witness of the petitioner, it emerges that after the termination of the respondent, other persons were engaged and therefore, there is a clear violation of Sections 25 G & H of the Act. The seniority list Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 22:28:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12282/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined which was sought to be produced by filing the production application was not produced, neither any explanation was offered for not producing the same. It is admitted by the witness of the petitioner that there are 7 Drivers working as on date. The learned Labour Court, considering the overall circumstances, has come to the conclusion that there is a violation of Section 25 F, G & H of the Act and has granted the relief of reinstatement without back wages.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, no error has been committed by the learned Court in granting the said relief. Therefore, no interference is required. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 22:28:31 IST 2025