Gujarat High Court
Dy. Executive Engineer vs Dilawarsinh Narendrasinh Jadeja on 7 August, 2023
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1025/2023 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1025 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5706 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1025 of 2023
==========================================================
DY. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Versus
DILAWARSINH NARENDRASINH JADEJA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Appellant(s)
No. 1,2
MR NAVALDAN R LANGA(2943) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 07/08/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
Heard Ms. Shruti Dhruve, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader, for the appellant and thelearned advocate Mr. Navaldan Langa
for the respondent.
2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the
learned single Judge granting the benefits of government Resolution
dated 17.10.1988 and directing the respondents to calculate and pay the
benefits to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of order of the writ court.
3. The relevant facts to decide the controversy as noted by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1025/2023 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2023
undefined
single Judge and as emerging from the record are that the original writ
petitioner was working as daily wager since 1.9.1991. His services came
to be terminated. The termination order dated 5.8.2000 came to be set
aside by the Labour Court as per judgment and order dated 8.11.2012.
The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the workman on the original
post without back wages. Special Civil Application No. 7964 of 2013
challenging the award of the Labour Court filed by the appellant herein
came to be dismissed on 7.10.2013. The order attained finality.
3.1 In the Special Civil Application, which culminated into the
impugned order, the prayer of the writ petitioner-workman was to grant
the benefits of state government resolution dated 17.10.1988. The
contention was that the service benefits based on the continuity, ought to
have been granted and the benefit of the resolution ought to have been
accordingly accorded to him in view of the judgment and award of the
Labour Court, which granted the continuity.
4. In the judgment and award of the Labour Court, reinstatement was
granted. The Labour Court did not deny the continuity. In absence of
express denial of the benefit of continuity, it could be submitted by
learned advocate for the respondent-workman that when the continuity
was not denied, it deemed to have been granted in favour of the
workman. The reinstatement, it was submitted, was to be considered with
continuity benefit.
5. What was submitted by the learned advocate for the respondent
workman is correct proposition of law. When the Labour Court has not
expressly denied the continuity from the award of reinstatement, the
continuity benefit flow for the workman. The judgment and order of the
Labour Court has been affirmed with the dismissal of the writ petition as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1025/2023 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2023
undefined
per order dated 7.10.2013, as stated above. No exception could be taken,
effect is that the respondent workman is entitled to continuity benefit.
6. The learned single Judge could not be said to have committed any
error in law granting the benefit of the government resolution dated
17.10.1988 treating the respondent workman in continuous employment
of the appellant. We may emphasise that the Labour Court while
reinstating the respondent workman, has not expressly denied the benefit
of continuity.
6.1 The benefits as directed to be calculated and paid to the petitioner
pursuant to the government resolution dated 17.10.1988 are found to be
in confirmity with the law.
7. In the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the decision of the
learned single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. Civil Application also
stands disposed of accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
C.M. JOSHI
