Gujarat High Court
Mamaya Govindbhai Lavadia vs Dy. Executive Engineer on 24 June, 2022
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/5705/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5705 of 2019
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 ?
==========================================================
MAMAYA GOVINDBHAI LAVADIA & 5 other(s)
Versus
DY. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Petitioner(s) No. 4
MR MUKESH H RATHOD(2432) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4.1,4.2,4.3,5,6
MR. KURVEN DESAI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 24/06/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 Heard Mr.Mukesh H. Rathod, learned advocate for the petitioners
and Mr.Kurven Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondents - State.
C/SCA/5705/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2022
2 The prayer in the petition is that the respondents be directed to
grant the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 from
the date of the awards i.e. 16.10.2016 and 17.10.2016 respectively in case
of the respective petitioners.
3 Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioners were working as
daily wagers from the year 1994, 96 and 84 as the case may be. Their
services were terminated in the year 1994, 1995 and 1998. Their
termination was challenged by raising an industrial dispute before the
Labour Court. The Labour Court, by the awards of 17.10.2016 and
16.10.2016, granted the benefit of reinstatement with continuity of
service but without backwages. The State challenged the award before
this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 17188 of 2007 and
allied petitions. By an order dated 11.12.2007, the order of the Labour
Court was modified, inasmuch as, the benefit of continuity of service
was taken away. It may be relevant to point out that in these petitions, on
11.12.2007, this Court passed an interim order by which the government
was directed to reinstate the petitioners on, or before 31.12.2007. The
operative part of the order reads as under:
"6. Hence. Rule.
7. Ad-interim relief in terms of Para 6(b) is granted on
condition that the petitioner shall have to reinstate each
respondent workman concerned in service on or before 31st
December 2007."
C/SCA/5705/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2022
4 The State challenged the order in appeal which was dismissed on
16.11.2009.
4.1 The short submission by Mr.M.H.Rathod, learned counsel for the
petitioner, is that even if the award is accepted in terms of the final order
of this Court dated 10.10.2016 by which the benefit of continuity of
service was taken away from the date of the award, it is necessary to
count that date and extend the benefits of the Resolution dated
17.10.1988 taking the date of the award as the relevant date.
5 Mr.Kurven Desai, learned AGP, would submit that the interim
order dated 11.12.2007 was challenged by the State in appeal and it was
only when the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on 16.11.2009 that
the petitioners were reinstated in the year 2010. Therefore, according to
Mr.Desai, learned AGP, for the purposes of the benefits of the
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the relevant date should be the
date of reinstatement in the year 2010.
6 Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the
parties, what is evident is that the awards in question directing
reinstatement was passed on 17.10.2006 and 16.10.2006. The awards
were challenged by the State. The interim order of 11.12.2007 stipulated
C/SCA/5705/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2022
that the petitioners should be reinstated on, or before, 31.12.2007 taking
31.12.2007 as the relevant date. The fact that the respondents did not
comply with the interim order dated 11.12.2007 is no ground for denying
the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 from that date
nothwithstanding their reinstatement in the year 2010.
7 In view of the above, the respondents are directed to extend the
benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the
petitioners. The exercise of computing the benefits and payments on the
basis of 31.12.2007 as the relevant date be done within a period of ten
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Petition is allowed,
accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly, to the above extent.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
Bimal
