Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Pithadiya Amit Kiritbhai on 28 June, 2022
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/5086/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5086 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13592 of 2021
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 ?
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
Versus
PITHADIYA AMIT KIRITBHAI & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.SOAHAM JOSHI, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 in SCA NO.5086 OF
2019
MR KRUNAL D PANDYA(3283) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 in SCA NO.5086
OF 2019
MR KRUNAL D PANDYA(3283) for the Petitioner(s) No. in SCA NO.13592
OF 2021
MR.SOAHAM JOSHI, AGP for the for the Respondent(s) No. 1 in SCA
NO.13592 OF 2021
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 28/06/2022
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr.Soaham Joshi learned AGP for the State
C/SCA/5086/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2022
and Mr.Krunal Pandya learned advocate for the
workman.
2. Special Civil Application No.5086 of 2019 has been
filed by the State challenging the award of the
Labour Court dated 02.07.2018 passed by the
Labour Court, Jamnagar, by which, the workman has
been directed to be reinstated without back-wages.
The workman aggrieved by the denial of back-wages
has filed Special Civil Application No.13592 of 2021.
3. Mr.Soaham Joshi learned AGP would submit that
looking to the evidence on record, it is an admitted
fact that the workman did not work for 240 days in
each year of service for the period from 01.06.2012
to 12.08.2014 as a driver. Inviting the Court's
attention to the written statement as well as the
relevant paragraphs of the award of the Labour
Court, Mr.Joshi would submit that the workman had
worked in the years 2012 to 2014 for 154, 278 and
78 days respectively. Hence, it cannot be said that
in accordance with the provisions of Section 25B of
C/SCA/5086/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2022
the Act, the workman had worked 240 days in each
year of service so as to warrant violation of Section
25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Moreover,
Mr.Joshi would submit that it was an apparent fact
that the workman was not possessing the driver's
license.
4. Mr.Krunal Pandya learned counsel appearing for the
workman would support the award of the Labour
Court as far as reinstatement is concerned. As far
as back-wages is concerned, in his petition,
Mr.Pandya would submit that once the Labour Court
had passed an award holding violation of Section
25F, back-wages ought to have been followed. There
is no discussion in the award with regard to the
denial of back-wages and the parameters on which
basis the same was denied.
5. Perusal of the award would indicate that the
question that the reference court was called upon to
decide was whether the termination of the workman
with effect from 12.08.2014 was in violation of
C/SCA/5086/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2022
provisions of Section 25F to the Industrial Disputes
Act. The case of the workman before the Labour
Court was that he was engaged as a driver with
effect from 01.06.2012 to 12.08.2014. On the basis
of the voucher annexed to the petition, the stand of
the employer was that in no case in each year of
service that the workman had completed 240 days.
Perusal of the award would indicate that on the
basis of the cross-examination of the employer as set
out in para 9.1 of the award, the Labour Court found
that the stand of the employer was that the workman
was seasonal and that the workman had not worked
continuously for the period from 01.06.2012 to
12.08.2014. What is additionally found by the
Labour Court that the work which was allotted to
the workman as a driver was subsequently
outsourced and therefore, though the work was
available, the workman has been discontinued in
service though having completed two years
continuous service in accordance with the provisions
of Section 25B of the Act.
C/SCA/5086/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2022
6. The award of reinstatement therefore does not
deserve to be interfered. As far as denial of back-
wages is concerned, it is evident that though
terminated in the year 2014, reference was filed two
years thereafter. The tenure of the workman that
the workman had undergone was approximately two
years as a driver. Denial of back-wages therefore to
the daily wager driver cannot be faulted.
7. In view of the above, both the petitions are
dismissed. The Labour Court award under challenge
be complied with within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
ANKIT SHAH
