Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Dalpatbhai Nanjibhai Galchar on 29 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/24097/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH Court OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 24097 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
DALPATBHAI NANJIBHAI GALCHAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HARSH SHAH, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
CHINTAN K GANDHI(8600) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PRAJESH D SOLANKI(13366) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 29/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Chintan Gandhi service of Rule on behalf of respondent.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhavnagar in I.D. Complaint No. 1 of 2010 dated Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:31:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/24097/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined 12.05.2022 whereby, the learned Labour Court has directed the present petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 20% back wages from the date of complaint.
2.1. It is the case of the present petitioner that the respondent was rendering service as part time sweeper since 1993 and through Union ahnd the reference came to be filed being Reference LCD No.30 of 2000 on 19.10.2000 seeking benefit of permanency. On 10.02.2006 the government resolution came to be passed wherein powers of appointment off part time workers came to be withdrawn with immediate effect resulting into the termination of the respondent from February, 2006 and after delay of four years the dispute was raised by filing the complaint under section 33A of the I.D.Act. Learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar has held that the termination is illegal and the respondent is entitled for the relief of reinstatement with 20% back wages which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned AGP.Mr Harsh Shah for the State and learned advocate Mr.Chintan Gandhi for the respondent. Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:31:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/24097/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined 3.1. Learned AGP Mr.Harsh Shah submits that the respondent was appointed as part time employee and due to resolution dated 10.02.2006 his service was put an end to as the powers of appointment of part time employees were withdrawn. Learned AGP Mr.Harsh Shah submits that the learned Court by ignoring the delay 4 years has granted the relief of reinstatement with 20% back wages and as on date the respondent had attained the age of superannuation therefore, impugned award deserves to be interfered with and petition is required to be allowed. Learned AGP Mr.Harsh Shah has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case Jagbir Singh Vs Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Anr. reported in 2009 (15) SCC 327 has submitted that instead of granting relief of reinstatement learned Court could have awarded lump sum compensation and therefore, impugned award deserves to be interfered with.
3.2. Per Contra, learned advocate Mr.Chintan Gandhi for the respondent has submitted that learned Court has examined the reasons for the delay in filing the complaint before the learned Labour Court under Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:31:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/24097/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined section 33A of the I.D.Act. Learned advocate Mr.Chintan Gandhi submits that indisputably the reference with regard to the regularization was pending on the day when the termination was ordered and therefore, no error has been committed by the learned Court in granting relief of reinstatement and holding the termination illegal. Learned advocate Mr.Chintan Gandhi submits that the petitioner has not only violated section 25(F) of the I.D.Act but also passed order in contravention of section 33A therefore, also the impugned award deserves to be upheld and the petition is required to be rejected.
4. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and on referring the reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court, it emerges that the petitioner was appointed as part time sweeper in the month of 1993 and has filed a reference seeking benefit of regularization through the Union on 19.10.2000 which was numbered as reference demand 30 of 2000. It is not in dispute that despite the pendency of above reference service of the respondent was terminated from February, 2006 neither the procedure Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:31:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/24097/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined prescribed under section 33(2)(b) was followed nor section 25(F) was followed therefore, the complaint came to be filed under section 33A before the learned Labour Court which was numbered as I.D. Complaint 1 of 2010 on 18.03.2010.
4.1. The reasons for the delay stated by the respondent was that he made sincere efforts to get back the service and though the assurance was given by the petitioner's office but same was not fulfilled. Learned to Court after examining the explanation offered for the delay, has concluded the reference in favour of the respondent by holding that delay was not with malafide intention and has granted relief of 20% back wages from the date of filing of complaint. In the opinion of this Court learned Court has maintained the equity and by not granting the benefit of 80% back wages is justified in passing the order of reinstatement. The next contention which was raised with regard to non-applicability of section 33A on the ground that respondent was part timer and the termination of the part timer during the pendency of dispute of regularization would not amount to change in condition as per section 33A of the ID Act. Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:31:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/24097/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined 4.2. This Court has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhavnagar Municipality Vs Alibhai Karimbhai reported in AIR 1977 SC 1229 wherein, the Apex Court has held as under:
14.The character of the temporary employment of the respondents being a direct issue before the Tribunal, that condition of employment, however insecure, must subsist during the pendency of the dispute before the Tribunal and cannot be altered to their prejudice by putting an end to that temporary condition. This could have been done only with the express permission of the Tribunal. It goes with- out saying that the respondents were directly concerned in the pending industrial dispute. No one also deny that snapping of the temporary employment of the respondents is not to their prejudice. All the five features adverted to above are present in the instant case. To permit rupture in employment, in this case, without the prior sanction of the Tribunal will be to set at naught the avowed object of section 33 which is principally directed to preserve the status quo under specified circumstances in the, interest of industrial peace during the adjudication. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that the appellant has contravened the provisions of section 33(a)(a) of the Act and the complaint under section 33A, at the instance of the respondents, is maintainable. The submission of Mr. Parekh to the contrary cannot be accepted.
5. On referring the above ratio as well as the facts involved in the case on hand, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Court is justified in directing the present Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:31:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/24097/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 20% back wages however, it emerges that during the pendency of the petition the respondent attained the age of superannuation in the month of January 2025 therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court the benefit awarded by the learned Labour Court is required to be granted till the date of superannuation i.e January 2025. In that background, no interference is required and present petition is required to be dismissed.
6. It is expected from the petitioners to comply with the order of the learned Labour Court within a period of four months from the date of this order.
7. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged (M. K. THAKKER,J) ARCHANA S. PILLAI Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:31:59 IST 2025