Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Kantibhai Devshibhai Kumbhar on 9 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9502/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9502 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
KANTIBHAI DEVSHIBHAI KUMBHAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MRS NASRIN N SHAIKH(2451) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 09/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms.Nasrin Shaikh waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award in Reference IT No.32 of 2014 by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar whereby, present petitioner was directed to grant benefit of regularization from 15.07.2005 and to Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:16:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9502/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined pay all consequential benefits including the retirement benefits. It is further clarified that the period from 15.07.2005 to 29.03.2014 to be treated as notional.
3. It is the case of the present petitioner that respondent was appointed as daily wager purely on temporary and ad-hoc basis depending upon the availability of work. On 15.07.2005, the respondent's service was put an end to therefore, reference being Reference I.T. No.2 of 2005 came to be filed before the learned Labour Court where in learned Labour Court has passed judgment and award on 22.01.2009 directing the present petitioner to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and without back wages. Accordingly the respondent's service were reinstated from 21.10.2009 on civil site of division office at Amreli. Claiming the benefit of regularization, another reference came to be filed being Reference I.T. No.32 of 2014 which came to be allowed in favour of the respondent by granting relief as mentioned hereinabove and same is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms.Nasrin Shaikh for Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:16:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9502/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined the respondent.
4.1. Learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw submits that the respondent has claimed the date of appointment as 1991 however, no evidence is adduced to show that he was working since 1991. Further learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw submits that as per the contention raised before the learned Labour Court which was not denied by the respondent, the respondent was appointed from 1994 and in absence of any sanction setup, no benefit of permanency can be granted in favour of the respondent. Learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw further submits that earlier the Board of Directors of GSRTC in its meeting dated 27.06.1991 resolved that those unskilled labourers who completed service not less than 10 years as on 01.10.1991 in the Corporation, was appointed on minimum pay scale of helper/majoor as per the Government Resolution dated 27.06.1991. Thereafter, again the resolution came to be passed in its meeting dated 18.07.1994 as well as 19.07.1994 resolving that daily wage unskilled labourers who completed 12 years of service be granted the benefit of time scale. Learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw further Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:16:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9502/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined submits that thereafter on 06.06.2007 another 61 employees who are in the cadre of helper were regularized by granting benefit of time scale however, thereafter no employees have been granted the benefit of permanency and has been granted benefit of time scale. Learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw submits that in absence of any post, no benefits can be awarded to the respondent. However, without considering the same learned court has allowed the reference in favour of the respondent, therefore, same is required to be set aside by allowing this petition.
4.2. Per Contra, learned advocate Ms.Nasrin Shaikh submits that though respondent was appointed in the year 1991 and time and again benefits of permanency were granted to the similarly situated employees, the respondent was deprived from the benefits of permanency. It is submitted by the learned advocate Ms.Nasrin Shaikh that after serving for 30 years, by not granting benefit of permanency, the petitioner has adopted unfair labour practice which is prohibited under I.D.Act and therefore, no error has been committed error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:16:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9502/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined granting the benefit of permanency. Learned advocate Ms.Nasrin Shaikh submits that initially the petitioner as well as the other identically situated employees including one Raghavbhai Mepabhai Solanki has filed the complaint under section 33A of the I.D.Act and during the pendency of the said complaint, Raghavbhai Mepabhai Solanki was regularized though he was terminated along with the present petitioner, however, the benefit was denied to the present petitioner. Learned advocate Ms.Nasrin Shaikh submits that as per the list of 61 employees who were regularized, some of the employees were appointed in the year 1991 and though they were juniors to the respondent, the petitioner Corporation has granted them the benefit of permanency, however by not granting the said benefit in favour of the respondent the petitioner-Corporation has given the discriminatory treatment to the respondent. Therefore, learned Tribunal is justified in granting the said benefit by passing the above order in favour of the respondent, therefore, no interference is required.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned advocates for the respective parties and referring the Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:16:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9502/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined reasons by the learned Reference Court, it emerges that as per the claim of the present respondent, the respondent had entered the S.T.Corporation, Amreli in Civil Department as a Helper in the year 1991 and on having terminated, the reference came to be filed being Reference I.T. No.2 of 2005 which came to be allowed on 22.01.2009 by granting the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages. The said award has attained finality and respondent was reinstated with the petitioner-Corporation and he served continuously since the date of reinstatement. As continuity was granted by the learned Tribunal while awarding reinstatement the learner Tribunal has believed the service of the respondent from 1991 onwards. The contention raised by the present petitioner in the additional affidavit that date of joining is not 1991 but it is 1994, however no contemporaneous record was produced to substantiate the same and in that background this Court is of the view that no error has been committed by the learned Reference Court in believing the date of joining as 1991.
5.1. With regard to the benefit of permanency which was Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:16:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9502/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined claimed the respondent has contended before the learned Reference Court that though appointed in the year 1991 and subsequently number of employees who are granted the benefit of permanency namely Raghavbhai Mepabhai Solanki, Anandubhai Vala, Chandubhai Kumbhar, the respondent was deprived from the said benefit. The said contention is supported from the list of 61 employees which are placed on record by the present petitioner along with additional affidavit. On referring the said list it emerges that the employees whose appointment date is subsequent to the present respondent namely Parmar Gauthambhai Ramjibai appointed on 20.01.1991, Virsangji Varvaji Thakor dated 20.04.1991, Bhikhubhai Budhabhai Rathod dated 31.08.1991 were regularized by the present petitioner- Corporation.
5.2. It is undisputed fact that respondent has regularized the service of the employees by passing 3 resolutions dated 27.06.1991, 18.07.1994 and 07.09.2007. only explanation offered for not granting said benefit in favour of the respondent is that respondent did not complete 10 years of service on the cut off date i.e Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:16:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9502/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined 01.10.1991. However, the list which is annexed with the additional affidavit suggest that the date of the employees who were granted benefit of permanency is 1991, though join after the respondent. Therefore, said contention is falsified from his own affidavit filed before this Court. As respondent has worked continuously from the date of appointment i.e 1991 onwards the learner Court is justified in granting the benefit of permanency, in view of the fact the juniors to the present respondent has also been granted the said benefit. The reliance was placed by the learned advocate Mr.Munshaw in the decision rendered by this Court in SCA No.10974 of 1993 LPA 1544 of 2005 and SCA 11717 of 2014 was on the different facts as in those cases the benefit of settlement was sought to be given which was directed by the learned Court by creating supernumerary post and in that background this Court has set aside the order passed by the learned Reference Court. The facts being different in the present case, therefore said judgment does not come to the rescue of the present petitioner.
6. In view of the above, the petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed.
Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:16:55 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9502/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined
7. Resultantly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) ARCHANA S. PILLAI Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Mon Sep 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 15 22:16:55 IST 2025