Gujarat High Court
Talaja Nagarpalika vs Varshaben Parshottambhai ... on 7 January, 2021
Bench: Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/LPA/36/2021 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 36 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5245 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 36 of 2021
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1001 of 2020
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5246 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1001 of 2020
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5246 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1002 of 2020
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5248 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1002 of 2020
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5248 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1003 of 2020
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5251 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1003 of 2020
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5251 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1004 of 2020
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5249 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1004 of 2020
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5249 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1005 of 2020
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5250 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1005 of 2020
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5250 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1006 of 2020
Page 1 of 4
Downloaded on : Tue Jan 11 23:44:04 IST 2022
C/LPA/36/2021 ORDER
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5247 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1006 of 2020
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5247 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1007 of 2020
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5252 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1007 of 2020
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5252 of 2017
==========================================================
TALAJA NAGARPALIKA
Versus
VARSHABEN PARSHOTTAMBHAI TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEEPAK N KHANCHANDANI(7781) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
MR RAJESH P MANKAD(2637) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM
NATH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 07/01/2021
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)
1 We have heard Shri Deepak N. Khanchandani,
learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Rajesh
Mankad, learned counsel appearing for the private
respondents.
2 The learned Single Judge after examining the entire
controversy in detail recorded the following findings:
[1] The writ petitioners were working for more
C/LPA/36/2021 ORDER
than 20 years continuously in the organization.
[2] The plea of alternative remedy taken was not
considered in view of the violation of principles of
natural justice and also violation of fundamental
rights of the writ petitioners.
3 The learned Single Judge also recorded that even
otherwise plea of alternative remedy is not an absolute
bar, but would depend upon the facts and circumstances
of the case. Such finding is recorded in para 27.1 of the
judgment. The learned Single Judge further directed that
all the petitioners be reinstated except the petitioners of
three petitions, who were no longer serving due to age
criteria and wages / salaries due to them to be paid.
Further directions were also issued to the respondent
No.3 - Employees Provident Fund Commissioner to get
the contributions deposited and further directed the
Municipality to take steps within 12 weeks in the light of
the decision in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma
Devi, the task of regularizing the services as of one time
measure. The findings so recorded by the learned Single
Judge are not in issue.
4 The main submission advanced by learned counsel
for the appellants is firstly that the writ petitioners ought
to have approached the Labour Court / Industrial
Tribunal for redressal of their grievances and as such the
learned Single Judge committed error in entertaining the
petitions despite there being alternative remedy. The
second ground raised is that the writ petitioners did not
C/LPA/36/2021 ORDER
produce any documents of their appointment or to show
that there were sanctioned posts. Both the issues have
been adequately dealt with by the learned Single Judge
and due findings are recorded with which we do not find
any reason to interfere as they are based on the material
on record and the settled legal propositions.
5 Another submission advanced by Shri Khanchandani,
learned counsel for the appellants relying upon a
judgment of the Supreme Court dated 07.02.2020 passed
in Civil Appeal No.1878 of 2016 between Oil and Natural
Gas Corporation Limited vs. Krishan Gopal & Ors., more
particularly, para 24 thereof, wherein certain issues were
framed which require reconsideration by Larger Bench
and have been referred as such. The law as it stands
today does permit the consideration of the case for
regularization and that alternative remedy is not an
absolute bar. Merely because a reference has been made
to Larger Bench would not make a judgment of the
learned Single Judge bad in law.
6 All the appeals lack merit and accordingly are
dismissed. Connected civil applications also stand
disposed of.
(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)
P. SUBRAHMANYAM
