Chief Officer Shri, Gariyadhar ... vs Maheshgiri Gurugiri Goswami
2021 Latest Caselaw 18580 Guj

      C/LPA/994/2021                                 ORDER DATED: 20/12/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 994 of 2021
           In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16521 of 2020
                                 With
              CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
              In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 994 of 2021
==========================================================
            CHIEF OFFICER SHRI, GARIYADHAR NAGAR PALIKA
                                Versus
                   MAHESHGIRI GURUGIRI GOSWAMI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIJAY H NANGESH(3981) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                            Date : 20/12/2021

                                ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE)

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal challenges order dated 09.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 16521 of 2020.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as follow:-

2.1 The respondent workman had raised a demand before Labour Court, Bhavnagar, seeking regularization of his services along with other benefits. It is the case of the respondent that he was working with the appellant since 01.01.1986 on continuous and regular basis. It is further his case that his selection and appointment was made after conducting recruitment process wherein interview was also conducted pursuant to the

C/LPA/994/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/12/2021

advertisement published on the notice board of the appellant Nagarpalika. It is alleged that he was being paid the wages as per the minimum wages treating him as a daily wager though the work being done by him was permanent in nature and he had been denied the benefits extended to a permanent employee.

2.2 Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (Demand) No. 6 of 2008 partly allowed the claim of the respondent and directed the appellant Nagarpalika to regularize the respondent workman on the post of clerk with effect from 01.01.1986 and also directed that other privileges would also be given to him from the date of reference i. e. 14.11.2008 and the period from 01.01.1986 to 14.11.2008 should be treated as notional for future benefits.

2.3 Aggrieved, the appellant Nagarpalika preferred Special Civil Application No. 16521 of 2020. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dismissed the Special Civil Application after appreciating the evidence on record and further observing that the reference preferred by the respondent herein was partly allowed in line with the similar references in respect of identically situated workmen. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2.4 Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

3. It is seen in the present case that similar references which were preferred by various similarly situated employees like the respondent workman, who were serving under the same Municipality, came to be allowed by the Industrial Tribunal by granting the relief of regularization and other privileges. The said reference came to be challenged by the appellant Nagarpalika by preferring Special Civil Application No. 18642 of 2017 (in case of Chief Officer, Gariyadhar Nagar Palika vs. Arvindbhai Dhulabhai

C/LPA/994/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/12/2021

Vanzara & others) and allied matters. The said Special Civil Applications came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 27.11.2017. The said order came to be challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 589 of 2019 and alllied appeals which also came to be dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 12.03.2019. That order dated 12.03.2019 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by preferring Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 13729-13732 of 2019 which also came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court thereby confirming judgment and order of the courts below.

4. It is not disputed by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant Nagarpalika herein that the respondent herein is also identically situated and that his reference was also allowed in terms of the earlier references as mentioned herein above.

5. In view of this admitted position, we see no reason to interfere in the present case. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference and the same has been passed after taking into consideration all the relevant factors in the present case. The Letters Patent Appeal accordingly stands dismissed. No order as to cost. Consequently, connected Civil Application does not survive and accordingly, it stands disposed of.

(S.H.VORA, J)

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)

cmk