Mahesh Keshavji Chauhan vs Kachchh Gramin Bank Since ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15994 Guj

       C/LPA/842/2021                              ORDER DATED: 11/10/2021




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                 R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 842 of 2021

            In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11842 of 2009

==========================================================
                   MAHESH KESHAVJI CHAUHAN
                            Versus
         KACHCHH GRAMIN BANK SINCE AMALGAMATED NAMED
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV HASURKAR(5640) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
           and
           HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

                             Date : 11/10/2021

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)

Heard learned advocate Mr. Bhargav Hasurkar for the appellant - the original respondent No.2.

2. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 18.10.2019 passed by learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 11842 of 2009 as well as order dated 6.8.2021 passed in Misc. Civil Application (for review) No. 1 of 2020.

2.1 By the first captioned order dated 18.10.2019 passed in the Special Civil Application, learned single Judge set aside the judgment and award of the Labour Court, Kachchh in Reference (LCD) Case No. 3 of 2002. By the said order, learned Judge acceding to the request of the parties, set aside the judgment and award of the Labour Court on the ground of jurisdiction, keeping the rights of the respondent No.2- the appellant herein open to agitate all his issues before the appropriate forum.

        C/LPA/842/2021                              ORDER DATED: 11/10/2021




2.2     Order dated 6.8.2021 was the order rejecting the review sought of

the aforesaid order of learned single Judge at the instance of the appellant original respondent No.2. The same is also dismissed.

3. The facts in the background are that the appellant original respondent No.2 in the Special Civil Application, who was working as Manager in the Kachchh Gramin Bank, through union invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court seeking to call in question the order of his reversion to the post of clerk. He prayed before the Labour Court to set aside the said punishment order and take him back on the original post with consequential benefits. The Labour Court at Bhuj by judgment and order dated 15.6.2009, directed reinstatement of the workman on his original post as Branch Manager with all incidental financial and other benefits.

3.1. The first party employer - Kuchchh Gramin Bank re-named as Dena Gramin Bank filed Special Civil Application before the learned single Judge challenging the judgment and award of the Labour Court. The same came to be dismissed of by learned single Judge. The issue considered by the learned single Judge was that the employee who had filed the Reference proceedings before Labour Court was holding the post of Branch Manager and upon punishment he was reverted to the post of Clerk, therefore, in capacity of Branch Manager, he could not be said to be holding the status of workman and thus, not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.

3.2 The aspect that the Labour Court could not have exercised the jurisdiction, was admitted by learned advocate for the employee - the appellant herein, which was recorded by learned single judge as under,

C/LPA/842/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/10/2021

"7. Before this Court dwell deeper into the aspect of merit and also on the aspect of jurisdiction, learned advocate Mr. Dave appearing for the respondent admitted that it was erroneous on the part of the labour Court to entertain the reference and adjudicate upon the same. He urges the Court to decide the aspect of preliminary objection on his admission and permit the respondent to take legal recourse as otherwise would be available to him."

3.3 It was also observed in the wake of the request made by learned advocate for the employee that all rights and contentions would be open before the appropriate forum. This part of the order of learned single reads as under,

"8. Learned advocate Mr. Patel has no objection to the Court quashing and setting aside the judgment and award on the ground of jurisdiction. So far as the merit of the matter is concerned, in wake of the request made by learned advocate Mr. Dave, he also has not raised any objection at this stage keeping his rights intact to raise all contentions available under the law, before the appropriate forum, if any such proceeding is initiated in future. "

3.4 Learned single Judge gave his own findings based on the facts of the case that the Bank Manager could not have claimed status of the workman,

"9. Bearing in mind the fact that from the beginning, the petitioner has worked as a Bank Manager and had also undergone departmental proceedings in the capacity of manager and later on, his punishment has reduced him to the post of clerk, there does not arise any question of his claiming to be the workman as has been shown by him. All his grievances are prior to his having worked on the post of clerk."

3.5    Finally, the Special Civil Application was disposed of on the basis





       C/LPA/842/2021                                      ORDER DATED: 11/10/2021




of the above concession and the findings as under,

"10. The request requires to be acceded to. The judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Kachchh in Reference (LCD) Case No. 03 of 2002 is hereby quashed and set aside, on the ground of jurisdiction alone, keeping the rights of the respondent open to agitate all his issues before an appropriate forum. Both the sides shall be at liberty within their rights to raise all contentions on merits and none of the findings and observations shall come in the way of the parties. Petition accordingly stands disposed of. No order as to cost."

3.6 It appears that thereafter the Letters Patent Appeal No. 348 of 2020 came to be preferred by the appellant against the above order of the learned single Judge. The Division Bench by order dated 22.7.2020, dismissed the appeal observing that the learned single Judge had decided the writ petition on the basis of the consent given by the learned advocate for the appellant - the original respondent No.2, as the issue was raised that the consent was not authorised and proper, the Division Bench granted liberty to file the Review Application on admissible grounds.

3.7 In the Review Application, which resulted into the order dated 6.8.2021 as above, learned single Judge noted therein the aspect of consent having given by learned advocate for the appellant - the original respondent No.2 and further observed that even otherwise since respondent had worked as Bank Manager and had undergone the departmental proceedings in the capacity of Manager and that upon punishment he was reverted to the post of Clerk, he could not have adverted to the remedy before the Labour court.

4. In the present Letters Patent Appeal, learned advocate for the appellant sought to reiterate the same contentions by submitting that the

C/LPA/842/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/10/2021

consent was not properly given. He then submitted that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was properly invoked as the appellant was reverted as Clerk and when the jurisdiction was invoked, he could be said to be having the status of clerk falling within the concept of workman to be entitled to the remedy before the Labour forum.

5. In light of the facts and the above submissions whereby the impugned orders were assailed by the appellant, recapitulating the basic facts, the appellant employee was appointed on the post of Bank Branch Manager since January, 1985, who was served with three chargesheet dated 1.11.1995, 25.3.1993 and 1.10.1996. It appears that by way of punishment, he was ordered to be reverted as clerk from the post of Branch Manager. He approached the Labour Court seeking the relief against the order of reversion.

5.1 While dismissing the Special Civil Application as per order dated 18.10.2019, learned single Judge, as recorded above, proceeded on the footing of the consent given by learned advocate for the employee as recorded in paragraph 7 of order of learned single Judge reproduced above. It was the submission on behalf of the respondent himself by way of admission that the Labour Court has erroneously entertained the Reference and wrongly adjudicated the same since it lacked the jurisdiction in the facts of the case. Learned advocate for the employee urged before the learned single Judge that the court may decide the said preliminary aspect on his admission and permit the respondent to take legal recourse as may be available. When such was the position, no error could be said to have been committed by learned single Judge in setting aside the judgment and award of the Labour Court on the ground of jurisdiction. While passing such order, learned single Judge also adverted to the aspect that the employee was the Branch Manager and could not have fallen within the meaning of workman under the Industrial Disputes

C/LPA/842/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/10/2021

Act, 1947 to be entitled to approach the Labour Court.

5.2 While dealing with the Review Application of the employee, the reasoning on the line was elaborated as per paragraph No.9 of the order passed in Review Application dated 6.8.2021. Having first re-emphasised the aspect that the first order was passed upon consent and admission, learned single Judge while rejecting the Review Application, observed as under,

"9. The Court acceded to the request, of course, but at the same time, at paragraph No.9, it had on the strength of the material on the record had noticed that the respondent had worked as a Bank Manager and also had undergone departmental proceedings in the capacity of the Manager and it was on his punishment that he was made the clerk and hence, he would not have

ORDER DATED: 06/08/2021 grievance is prior to his having worked on the post of the clerk. Thus, on the ground of jurisdiction alone and keeping the rights of the parties open to be agitated before the appropriate forum, the petition was disposed as not pressed."

6. In setting aside the judgment and order of the Labour Court and rejecting the review, no error whatsoever could be said to have been committed by the learned single Judge.

7. No case is made out to entertain the present Letters Patent Appeal. It stands meritless and is summarily dismissed.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

(DR. A. P. THAKER, J) C.M. JOSHI