Gujarat High Court
Secretarty vs Rajendrasinh Hamirsinh Parmar on 23 June, 2021
Bench: A.J.Desai, A. P. Thaker
C/LPA/1527/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1527 of 2019
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18166 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1527 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
SECRETARY
Versus
RAJENDRASINH HAMIRSINH PARMAR
================================================================
Appearance:
MR JK SHAH, AGP (1) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
and
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER
Date : 23/06/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI)
1. By way of present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, the appellant-State Authority has challenged the oral
C/LPA/1527/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2021
judgment dated 24.7.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in
Special Civil Application No.18166 of 2016 by which the
petition filed by the present respondent is accepted directing
the present appellant-authority to treat the workman as if he
was in continuous service from the date of initial joining of
services and further directing to give all notional benefits
available to him.
2. The appeal came to be admitted by an oral order dated
18.9.2019. The respondent-workman is represented by
Mr.Chaudhari and has opposed the appeal by relying upon
several decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court as well as
orders passed by different Division Benches of this Court. A
compilation has been supplied. The appeal is taken up for final
hearing.
3. The short facts arise from the record are as under:-
3.1 That the respondent raised a dispute that though he was
a daily wager with the appellant since 1979, his services were
terminated by oral order dated 20.1.1993. Case was referred
to Labour Court, Surendranagar, and was numbered as
Reference (LCS) No.74 of 1994. The Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Surendranagar, by his judgment and award dated
8.11.2006 accepted the reference and directed present
appellants to reinstate the workman on his post, however,
denied the backwages and continuity of service. Though the
workman was reinstated on the post, he was not granted
benefits under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988,
therefore, he preferred a writ petition being Special Civil
Application No.18166 of 2016 before this Court. Learned Single
C/LPA/1527/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2021
Judge, by relying upon several decisions of the Honourable
Supreme Court, and particularly decision in the case of
Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Others [2002 (92)
FLR 838], allowed the petition and ordered to treat him in
continuous service and directed the appellants to give him all
notional benefits. Such decision is under challenge in this
appeal.
4. Mr.J.K.Shah, learned AGP appearing for the appellant-
State has relied upon decision dated 29.11.2016 passed in
Letters Patent Appeal No.1306 of 2016 and allied appeals in
which Division Bench of this Court has observed as under in
paragraph 7:-
"7. It is not disputed that so far as the order dated 31 st
July, 2015 passed by the learned single Judge in Special
Civil Application No.2796 of 2015 is concerned, in the
said petition, the respondents - petitioners have
succeeded before the Labour Court by obtaining
directions not only for reinstatement but there was also
specific direction to extend the benefit of continuity of
service. So far as the award obtained by the
respondents-petitioners in the present matters is
concerned, there was merely a direction for
reinstatement without back wages and there was no
specific direction to extend the benefit of continuity of
service. In that view of the matter, while we do not find
any ground to interfere with the order of the learned
single Judge, issue direction to consider the claim of the
petitioners for extension of benefit of the Government
Resolution dated 17th October, 1988, at the same time,
they are not on par with the original petitioners of
Special Civil Application No. 2796 of 2015 and no
decision need be taken in the present matters keeping in
mind the order dated 31st July, 2015 passed in the said
petition. At the same time, in view of the submission
made by the learned counsel for the respondents, we are
of the view that as the respondents-original petitioners
were not in service for the period from 1.4.2003 to
C/LPA/1527/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2021
7.5.2007, we clarify that they are not entitled for any
such benefit of continuity of service for extending
the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17 th
October, 1988. Subject to the above modification, we
allow these appeals in part and confirm the rest of the
order of the learned single Judge. The order of the
learned single Judge shall stand modified to the extent
indicated above."
4.1 In view of above, Mr.Shah would submit that since there
is no specific direction by the Labour Court to give all benefits
and treat him in continuous service, the respondent would not
be entitled to get such benefit. Therefore, he would submit
that the appeal be allowed.
5. On the other hand, Mr.Chaudhari, learned advocate for
the respondent has taken us through different orders passed
by this Court in similar facts and circumstances, and has
heavily relied upon decision of Honourable Supreme Court in
the case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao v. Kosan
Industries Private Limited [2020 LLR 813]. He would
submit that the Honourable Supreme Court has held therein
that once a person is reinstated, continuity of service would
follow as a matter of law and, therefore, the learned Single
Judge has committed no error in allowing the petition. He
would, therefore, submit that the appeal be dismissed.
6. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the
parties. We have also gone through the judgment and award
dated 8.11.2016 passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar,
whereby the workman is reinstated but continuity of service is
not granted to him and we find that it is erroneous. In case of
Gurpreet Singh (supra), which has been relied upon by learned
Single Judge, it has been specifically held by Honourable
C/LPA/1527/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2021
Supreme Court that reinstatement in service would follow
continuity of service. In the case of Nandkishore Shravan
Ahirrao (Supra), it is held as under:-
"7. Ex facie, the Labour Court having awarded
reinstatement to the appellant, continuity of service would
follow as a matter of law. The award of the Labour Court
dated 27 February 2008 does not specifically deny continuity
of service. Hence the observation of the High Court to the
effect that the Labour Court had denied continuity of service
is erroneous and would accordingly stand corrected in terms
of what has been observed herein-above. The appellant would
be entitled to continuity of service."
7. Similar is the ratio laid down by Honourable Supreme
Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra). Hence, the case is
squarely covered under the above decisions of the Apex court.
Hence, the appeal is meritless and accordingly, appeal is
dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. In view of
above order, Civil Application would not survive and the same
is disposed of.
Sd/-
(A.J.DESAI, J)
Sd/-
(DR. A. P. THAKER, J)
R.S. MALEK
