Dangar Ravibhai Manubhai vs The Municipal Secretary, Rajkot ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2710 Guj

     C/SCA/15095/2021                                          ORDER DATED: 09/03/2022



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15095 of 2021
==========================================================
                 DANGAR RAVIBHAI MANUBHAI
                          Versus
  THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MURALI N DEVNANI(1863) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                                 Date : 09/03/2022
                                  ORAL ORDER

1. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Devnani has very fairly conceded to this Court that in the identical matter of co-employee being Special Civil Application No.2624 of 2020, this Court vide order dated 30.01.2020 has dismissed the petition, which is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 19.01.2022 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.335 of 2021.

2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.08.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No.34 of 2014. The similar order dated 27.08.2019 passed in Reference (LCR) No.39 of 2014 has been confirmed by the Coordinate Bench as well as Division Bench of this Court.

3. The facts are also identical. In the order dated 30.01.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.2624 of 2020, the Coordinate Bench has observed thus:

C/SCA/15095/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/03/2022

"3. In this backdrop of facts, the Labour Court rejected the Reference and held in clear terms that there is neither anyb reach of Section 25F nor 25G nor 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

4. This Court has heard ls Mr. Murali Devnani. According to him, even the illegal appointment would need the legal logical conclusion. This Court notices at the outset, that Section 2 (OO), the definition of 'retrenchment' under the Act would mean that, the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reasons whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action and does not include the termination of the service of the workman, as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employer between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein.

5. The Labour Court has rightly held that there isn o violation of any of the provisions of 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. The case of the present petitioner will not get covered under the definition of retrenchment. Here, in the preent case, there has been a challenge to the illegal appointment and back-door entry of 27 persons before this Court and during the pendecy of that petition, the State Government itself had permanently suspended the resolution of the Standing Committee and this Court had directed the Commissioner to follow the directions of the State."

4. The Division Bench, by the order dated 19.01.2022, while confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge, has observed thus:

"6. Here, we are in total agreement with the observations made by the learned single Judge, even on perusal of the impugned judgment and award of the Labour Court rendered in the reference made by the appellant, no error is

C/SCA/15095/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/03/2022

found and this appeal being misconceived and deserves to be dismissed."

5. The writ petition stands rejected in view of the aforesaid orders. Notice is discharged.

Sd/-

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) NVMEWADA