Gujarat High Court
Bhupatsinh Samantsinh Khant vs Range Forest Officer on 15 September, 2021
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/8053/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8053 of 2019
================================================================
BHUPATSINH SAMANTSINH KHANT
Versus
RANGE FOREST OFFICER
================================================================
Appearance:
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.ROHAN SHAH, AGP for the Respondent no.1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N)(11) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 15/09/2021
ORAL ORDER
[1] Rule. Learned advocate for the respondent-
State waives service of notice of rule on behalf
of the respondent.
[2] In the present writ petition, the petitioner
has challenged the award dated 24.01.2018 passed
by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T)
No.108 of 2010, whereby and wherein the Labour
Court has directed the workman to be reinstated
in service with continuity of service without
back wages.
[3] At the outset, learned advocate
Mr.P.C.Chaudhri has submitted that even after
passing of the award of reinstatement, though the
workman is reinstated, but he is engaged on Piece
C/SCA/8053/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2021
Rate wages and the said communication dated
02.01.2019 is also challenged in the writ
petition.
[3.1] 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 the communication of the respondent
authorities in reinstating the workman on Piece
Rate wages. He has submitted that thus, the
action of the respondent authorities in engaging
the present petitioner on Piece Rate is required
to be set aside.
[4] Learned AGP Mr.Rohan Shah has submitted that
the impugned award is not required to be declared
as illegal and arbitrary since the Labour Court
has preciously held by issuing the direction of
reinstatement of the workman since it is the case
of the State authority that the workman has not
completed 240 days in each year.
[5] I have considered the rival submissions and
impugned award, which is the subject matter of
challenge in the captioned writ petition.
[6] The facts, which are brought on record are
C/SCA/8053/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2021
that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wager
in the year 2002 as a Watchman-cum-mali and was
terminated on 15.06.2009 for want of grant.
[7] On a perusal of the award in fact it is
revealed that the respondent authority 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 preciously
concluded that the termination of the workman is
in violation of Section 25F of the I.D.Act. So
far as the challenge to the awarding back wages
is concerned, the Court finds that the workman
has not categorically pleaded before the Labour
Court that he was not gainfully employed after
his termination and hence, no illegality or
perversity can be found in the award passed by
the Labour Court denying back wages.
[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
respondent authority would be an unfair labour
practice. It is not the case of the respondent
C/SCA/8053/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2021
authority that before the termination, he was
engaged in Piece Rate basis. After his
termination is declared as illegal by the Labour
Court, it is not open for the respondent
authority to change the status of the daily wager
to his detriment by engaging the workman on Piece
Rate wages. The reinstatement would mean that the
daily wager has to be reinstated on his original
status by conferring the same status and such
alteration of status from daily wager to Piece
Rate worker is not permissible under the law.
[9] The Coordinate Bench in similar issue vide
judgment dated 05.11.2020 passed in Special Civil
Application No. 2764 of 2018 has set aside such
communication and directed the respondent
authorities to reinstate the workman on original
post. Thus, the present writ petition filed by
the workman is allowed to the extent that the
action of the respondent authorities in engaging
him on Piece Rate wages vide communication dated
02.01.2019 is held to be illegal and such
communication is quashed and set aside. The award
of the Labour Court is confirmed. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
NABILA
