Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Hiraben Changanpari Gosai on 13 January, 2021
Bench: Mr. Justice Nath, Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/LPA/87/2021 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 87 of 2021
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18620 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 87 of 2021
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
HIRABEN CHANGANPARI GOSAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 13/01/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)
1. Heard Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the appellant-State.
2. Learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition filed
by the appellant-State challenging the judgment and award
dated 31.01.2019 passed by the learned 3rd Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Rajkot (Morbi Camp) in Recovery Application No.
29 of 2013. While confirming the said judgment and award, the
learned Single Judge has directed to implement the said
judgment and award at the earliest. Operative portion of the
judgment of the learned Single Judge reads as under:
"14. Therefore, the petition is rejected, in limine. Let
the implementation of the judgment and award dated
31.01.2019 passed by the learned 3rd Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Rajkot (Morbi camp) in Recovery
Application No. 29 of 2013 be made, at the earliest."
C/LPA/87/2021 ORDER
3. Before us, the learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.
Pathak submitted that no liberty has been given to the State to
examine as to whether or not the respondent No.1 has
accumulated the required number of days in her leave account
for the purpose of grant of payment of 300 days' leave. Insofar
as the entitlement of the respondent No.1 for the benefit of
leave encashment is concerned, there is no issue. Learned
Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that as there
is clear mandamus issued to the petitioners in the petition
(appellants herein) to implement the judgment and award of
the 3rd Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajkot (Morbi Camp)
wherein the Labour Court has held the respondent herein to be
entitled to the leave encashment, it may be inappropriate that
without verifying about the admissibility of the entire period of
leave encashment, amount may be released.
4. To this limited extent, the modification has been sought.
5. Normally, we would have issued notice to the respondent
No.1 in the appeal, but considering the nature of the relief
pressed, which appears to be innocuous and even otherwise it
is fair and reasonable that the State authorities (employer)
may verify from the record regarding entitlement, we are not
issuing notice to the respondent No.1 as apparently no
prejudice would be caused to her by the modification sought.
6. Thus, without disturbing the entitlement allowed by the
Labour Court as confirmed by the learned Single Judge, we
dispose of this appeal with the limited modification that before
making the payment, the appellants would verify about the
admissibility of 300 days for conversion into leave encashment
C/LPA/87/2021 ORDER
as per the direction given by the learned Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Rajkot (Morbi Camp), considering the total
length of service of the respondent No.1 herein.
7. In case, respondent No.1 feels aggrieved by this order,
she would be free to apply for recall of this order.
8. With the above modification, the appeal is disposed of.
Consequently, the connected Civil Application for stay stands
disposed of.
(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)
OMKAR
