Kanabhai Shefabhai Algotar vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 7879 Guj

    C/SCA/21778/2019                             JUDGMENT DATED: 13/09/2022




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21778 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 ?

==========================================================
                       KANABHAI SHEFABHAI ALGOTAR
                                  Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. VISHAL P THAKKER(7079) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
Mr. KURVEN DESAI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                             Date : 13/09/2022

                            ORAL JUDGMENT

1 Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Kurven Desai, learned

Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of

C/SCA/21778/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/09/2022

rule on behalf of the respondent - State.

2 The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is

entitled to the benefits of the resolution dated

17.10.1988.

2.1 The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was

working as a Rojamdar since the year 1992. With effect

from 16.05.2000, his services came to be terminated, as a

result of which he preferred a Reference being Reference

(LCB) Case No. 111 of 2001 in the Labour Court at

Bhavnagar.

2.2 The Labour Court, on 08.12.2010, passed an award

directing reinstatement with continuity of service with

20% backwages.

2.3 On a challenge to the award made by the petitioner

before this Court, this Court, on 07.04.2017, dismissed

the petition of the State. The petitioner was reinstated on

C/SCA/21778/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/09/2022

28.11.2017.

3 Be it noted that earlier, the petitioner had filed

Special Civil Application No. 574 of 2018. This Court, on

17.01.2018, considered the case of the petitioner and

held as under:

"5. There is no gainsaying that the labour court directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and with all such consequential benefits, the petitioner has been taken back in service as per the award. The challenge to the judgment and award of the labour court has failed before this court, hence the services of the petitioner deserve to be recognised and treated as continuous in light of the judgment and award of the labour court, confirmed by this court. On this footing, whatever benefits flow from the resolution dated 17.10.1988, are required to be considered for the petitioner by examining the case of the petitioner.

5.1 Since the respondents are yet to take a decision on the plea of the petitioner, at this stage this petition could be disposed of by issuing appropriate directions to the respondent authorities which would subserve the ends of justice.

6. As a result, the respondents are directed to act through their competent authority and consider the case of the petitioner by examining other relevant facts for the purpose of granting him benefits emanating from resolution dated 17.10.1988 and further to grant him applicable pay scale in light of the stipulations and conditions of the said resolution

C/SCA/21778/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/09/2022

dated 17.10.1988 as may be applicable to the petitioner. Such a decision shall be taken positively within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of this order."

4 Obviously therefore, as observed by this Court that

there is no gainsaying that the Labour Court directed

reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service

and with all consequential benefits, the benefits flowing

from the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 are required to be

considered by examining the case of the petitioner.

5 Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents

are directed to extend the benefits of the Resolution

dated 17.10.1988 which he is entitled to in light of the

judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the

case of State of Gujarat vs. PWD Employees' Union.,

reported in (2013) 12 SCC 417, and extend the benefits

within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of

copy of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid

extent.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) BIMAL