Gujarat Ardhsarkari Audhyogic ... vs Presiding Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 921 Guj

     C/SCA/21680/2017                             JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2022




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21680 of 2017


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
        GUJARAT ARDHSARKARI AUDHYOGIC KARMACHARI SANGH
                             Versus
                  PRESIDING OFFICER, & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PH PATHAK(665) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KURVEN DESAI, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                              Date : 28/01/2022

                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) No. 482 of 2012 dated 09.08.2017 by which the reference of the petitioner for declaring them as permanent garderners has

C/SCA/21680/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2022

been rejected. They have prayed for seeking benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

2. The petitioner union had filed a statement of claim for being treated as regular gardeners with the respondents no. 2 and 3. Based on the evidence on record, an examination of witnesses, the Tribunal rejected the reference on the ground that the gardeners were not direct employees of respondents no.2 and 3 but those of one Shivam Kamdar Sahakari Mandali.

3. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner union would submit that on the basis of evidence it was apparent that the members of the petitioner union ought to have been treated as employees of respondents no. 2 and 3. HE would submit that one Mr. A.J. Dave, advocate was appearing in the matter, however, it appears that the Tribunal mixed up the cases by showing the name of Mr. B.B. Thesiya as the advocate. That in the cross examination of the employee the witness had admitted that he has no information about the appointment of workman.

4. Learned AGP appearing for the respondent State supported the impugned order.

5. Having perused the award of the Tribunal what is evident is that the members of the Union were working as gardeners and were looking after the High Court gardens. One Dashrathji Juhaji Thakore was examined on behalf of the petitioner. In his examination-in-chief, the deponent had clearly admitted that he had no evidence to show that the salary was being paid by respondents no. 2 and 3. On the contrary, evidence was on record to show that the labourers who were engaged in

C/SCA/21680/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2022

high court premises were engaged by Shivam Majoor Kamdar Sahakari Mandali limited. The letter dated 09.07.1990 written to the Police Inspector of Sola High Court was clearly regarding permitting entry to the members of the petitioner union who were employees of the said agency - Shivam Majoor Kamdar Sahakari Mandali. It was based on this evidence that the Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner union. No error can be found in the findings of the Tribunal.

6. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) DIVYA