Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Hathibhai Manabhai Damore on 15 September, 2021
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/1777/2020 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1777 of 2020
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
HATHIBHAI MANABHAI DAMORE
================================================================
Appearance:
MR.ROHAN SHAH, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
. for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
SERVED BY RPAD (N)(6) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 15/09/2021
ORAL ORDER
[1] Learned advocate Mr.P.C.Chaudhari has
submitted that he has received instructions to
appear on behalf of the respondent-workman and he
shall file his Vakalatnama before the Registry at
the earliest.
Rule. Learned advocate for the respondent
waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the
respondent.
[2] In the present writ petition, the petitioner
has challenged the award dated 29.11.2018 passed
by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T)
No.33 of 2003, whereby and wherein the Labour
Court has directed the workman to be reinstated
C/SCA/1777/2020 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2021
in service with continuity of service without
back wages.
[3] At the outset, learned AGP Mr.Rohan Shah
appearing for the petitioner-State has submitted
that the impugned award is not required to be
declared as illegal and arbitrary since the
Labour Court has illegally held by issuing the
direction of reinstatement of the workman since
the workman has not completed 240 days in each
year.
[4] Learned advocate Mr.P.C.Chaudhri appearing
for the respondent-workman has submitted that
even after passing of the award of reinstatement,
though the workman is reinstated, he is engaged
on Piece Rate wages. It is submitted that in
cognate matters, this Court has already confirmed
similar awards.
[4.1] He has submitted that on similar set of
facts, the Coordinate Bench in group of petitions
being Special Civil Application No. 2767 of 2018
and other allied matters, vide judgment dated
05.11.2020, while confirming the award, has set
aside such action of engaging the daily wagers on
Piece Rate wages. He has submitted that thus, the
action of the petitioner State in engaging the
respondent - workman on Piece Rate is required to
C/SCA/1777/2020 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2021
be set aside.
[5] I have considered the rival submissions and
the impugned award, which is the subject matter
of challenge in the captioned writ petition.
[6] The facts, which are brought on record are
that the respondent was engaged as a daily wager
in the year 1993 as a Watchman-cum-mali and was
terminated on 10.08.2002 for want of grant.
[7] On a perusal of the award in fact it is
revealed that the petitioner State has not
pleaded that the workman did not complete 240
days in each year of his service and he did not
render continuous service under Section 25B of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short
"I.D.Act"). The workman is also not cross-
examined to that effect before the Labour Court
and thus, the Labour Court, in absence of such
pleadings and documentary evidence has precisely
concluded that the termination of the workman is
in violation of Section 25F of the I.D.Act.
[8] With regard to the issue of engaging the
workman as on Piece Rate wages, this Court is of
the considered opinion that such action of the
petitioner State would be an unfair labour
practice. ?However, since the workman has not
C/SCA/1777/2020 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2021
challenged such action, this Court is not further
observing anything on such aspect.
[9] This writ petition fails. The award of the
Labour Court is confirmed. Rule is discharged.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
NABILA
