State Of Gujarat vs Lakhu Govind Changa
2021 Latest Caselaw 246 Guj

         C/SCA/115/2021                                       ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 115 of 2021

==========================================================
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
                                  Versus
                          LAKHU GOVIND CHANGA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ASMITA PATEL, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                             Date : 08/01/2021

                              ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader

Ms.Asmita Patel for the petitioner - State through video

conference.

2. Ms.Patel requests for amending the cause title by

impleading the Principal, Adarsh Nivashi Shala, b/h.

Sunrise Mall, Mu.Post Bhachau - Kachchh. Permission, as

prayed for, is granted. Amendment to be carried out

forthwith.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for

following reliefs:

"A. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to admit and allow this writ petition;

        C/SCA/115/2021                                ORDER




         B.     YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue a

writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and/ or any other writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 17.01.2020 passed in Reference (IT) No.117 of 2016 passed by the Learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot;

C. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to stay, implementation, operation and execution of the judgment and order dated 17.01.2020 passed in Reference (IT) No.117 of 2016 passed by the Learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot;

D. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Patel

submitted that respondent No.1 joined the services as Peon

under respondent No.3 since the year 1995 and served

under respondent No.3 till the year 2001. The services of

the respondent No.1 came to be terminated in the year 2001

and the respondent No.1 challenged the said termination by

way of preferring Reference (LCB) No.30 of 2002 before the

Labour Court, Bhuj-Kachchh. Said Reference was partly

allowed and by way of an award dated 01.04.2011 the

learned Labour Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh held the termination

C/SCA/115/2021 ORDER

of the respondent No.1 as illegal and directed the petitioner

to reinstate the respondent No.1 without back wages, but

with continuity of service. The aforesaid award dated

01.04.2011 was challenged before this Court by the

petitioner by way of filing Special Civil Application No.10503

of 2011. This Court vide order dated 11.08.2011 dismissed

the aforesaid petition and accordingly respondent No.1 was

reinstated in service with effect from 02.07.2014.

5. After the respondent No.1 was reinstated in service, he

preferred Reference (IT) No.117 of 2016 before the Industrial

Tribunal at Rajkot. By way of said Reference, respondent

No.1 prayed for benefit of permanency in service and other

consequential arrears with effect from 01.09.1995 along

with 18% interest. Respondent No.1 also prayed for

extending him the benefits of Government Resolution dated

17.10.1988 issued by the State Government. Respondent

No.1 also prayed for numbers of other reliefs by way of

Reference (IT) No.117 of 2016.

6. The aforesaid Reference was decided by the Industrial

Tribunal, Rajkot vide order dated 17.01.2020 whereby the

C/SCA/115/2021 ORDER

Tribunal, while partly allowing the Reference, held that

since the respondent No.1 was reinstated by the present

petitioner since 02.07.2014, he is entitled to all the benefits

flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

7. It is this order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the

Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot which is under challenge by way

of the present petition. Learned Assistant Government

Pleader Ms.Patel assailed the aforesaid order only on the

ground that the learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot has

failed to appreciate that the word "permanent" in

Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 does not mean

that the daily wagers are absorbed in the Government

service as government employee, but by way of the said GR

dated 17.10.1988, the Government has only extended

certain benefits to the daily wagers. According to Ms.Patel

respondent No.1 is not entitled for any such benefits,

however, she could not point out any such criteria with

regard to entitlement of Government Resolution dated

17.10.1988 and as to how the respondent No.1 is not

fulfilling that criteria from the record. Ms.Patel further

contended that the petitioner establishment is not an

C/SCA/115/2021 ORDER

'industry' and, therefore, the order under challenge is

passed without any jurisdiction as the Industrial Tribunal,

Rajkot has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it.

8. On perusal of the order under challenge, it can be seen

that the present petitioners did not raise any dispute in

respect of either jurisdiction of the Tribunal or in respect of

entitlement of the respondent No.1 to the effect that he is

not entitled or qualified to avail the benefits flowing from the

Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. In fact, on

perusal of the impugned order, it can be seen that no oral or

documentary evidence was produced by the petitioner

before the Industrial Tribunal and Industrial Tribunal has,

in para:8 of the order, specifically observed that petitioner's

right of evidence was closed in presence of it's advocate.

Even in reasoning part, more particularly in a later portion

of para:12 of the order, Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot

specifically observed that as against the claim of respondent

No.1 that he has studied upto standard 8th and was serving

as 'Peon' under the respondent No.3 and after his

reinstatement on 02.07.2014, he became entitled to have

the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. In

C/SCA/115/2021 ORDER

respect of aforesaid submissions / contentions of the

respondent No.1 since the present petitioner did not

produce any documentary or oral evidence, considering the

various judgments referred to in the order, the Industrial

Tribunal, Rajkot passed an order dated 17.01.2020 holding

the respondent no.1 to be entitled to have all the benefits

flowing from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

9. For the forgoing reasons, this Court does not find any

reason to interfere with the order dated 17.01.2020 passed

by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot passed in Reference (IT)

No.117 of 2016. Accordingly, no interference is called for in

the impugned order. The present petition, therefore, needs

to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. No order as to

costs.

(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) MISHRA AMIT V.