Gulabsinh Hindusinh Bhati vs The Taluka Panchayat Office
2023 Latest Caselaw 291 Guj

     C/SCA/7853/2008                             JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7853 of 2008


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
==========================================================

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 ?

==========================================================
                        GULABSINH HINDUSINH BHATI
                                  Versus
                       THE TALUKA PANCHAYAT OFFICE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CB DASTOOR(238) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                             Date : 11/01/2023
                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Present writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:

"(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set

C/SCA/7853/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2023

aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the President Officer, Labour Court, Palanpur in Ref. Appln. No.114/96 dtd.4.8.2007 and further be pleased to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages and consequential benefits.

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petitioner by way of ad-interim relief the execution and implementation of the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, Palanpur in Rf. Appln.NO.114/96 dtd. 4.8.2007 be stayed.

(D) Any other and further relief may kindly be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

2. The brief facts leading to the case are as follows:

2.1 The petitioner was appointed in the service of the

respondent-Taluka Panchayat Office on 27.03.1977 by way

of various resolutions passed by the respondent

continuously till his services were dispensed with on

31.12.1985.

2.2 Aggrieved by non-extension of his services, the

petitioner had preferred Reference before the learned

C/SCA/7853/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2023

Assistant Labour Commissioner, who by order dated

28.02.1989 made the following reference "Whether the

workman Shri Gulabsinh Hindusinh Bhati is entitled to

reinstatement in service with back wages or not?".

Accordingly Old Reference (LCP) No.479 of 1989 came to be

registered in the Labour Court and New Reference (LCP)

No.114 of 1996 came to be given to the same.

2.3 Upon notice, the respondent Taluka Panchayat Office

appeared. The parties led evidence in support of their case

and adduced documentary as well as oral evidence. By the

impugned judgment and order, the learned Labour Court,

dismissed the Reference holding that the petitioner-

workman was not removed illegally from service and the

services of the petitioner-workman came to an end in view of

the expiry of the time period for which the petitioner

workman was engaged. Accordingly, the learned Labour

Court dismissed the Reference holding that the petitioner-

workman was not entitled for reinstatement with back

wages.

C/SCA/7853/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2023

3. Mr.C.B. Dastoor, learned advocate for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner was a daily wager since

27.03.1977 and had worked upto March, 1986, three

months after the expiry of the resolution appointing him for

a period of one year and he is not even paid the salary for

three months. He further submits that the petitioner-

workman was terminated illegally without following any

provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for

short, "the Act"), 1947. He further submits that if the date of

first appointment of the petitioner is taken into account i.e.

27.03.1977, then the present case cannot be said to be

covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act since the said

provisions came into force with effect from 18.08.1984.

4. He further submits that in a catena of decisions, this

Court has held that any appointment prior to 18.08.1984

will not be covered under the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb)

of the Act. He, therefore, submits that the learned Labour

Court has erred in holding that the case of the petitioner is

C/SCA/7853/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2023

covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act, and therefore,

there is no requirement to follow the procedure under

Section 25F of the Act.

5. He further submits that the petitioner had worked

continuously since 27.03.1977 till his termination on

31.12.1985. He submits that the learned Labour Court has

ignored in taking into the account the repeated reminders

which were given by the petitioner-workman to the higher

authorities. He submits that there is clear violation of the

provisions of Section 25F of the Act in the present case and

the learned Labour Court ought to have granted the relief in

the Reference.

6. He, therefore, submits that impugned order be

quashed and set aside and the petitioner-workman be

reinstated in the service with back wages.

7. Mr.Devang Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for

Ms.H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent-

Taluka Panchayat Office submits that it is an admitted

C/SCA/7853/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2023

position that the services of the petitioner-workman were

engaged by passing an appropriate Resolution on

27.03.1977. He submits that thereafter, the respondent

after taking due permission from the State Government as

20% of grant was being received from the State Government

had passed fresh Resolution after the expiry of each term for

which the petitioner-workman was appointed. He submits

that lastly, as per the sanction received from the State

Government, the petitioner by Resolution No.183 was

appointed once again from 01.01.1985 till 31.01.1985. He

submits that the appointment was in terms of the resolution

and by way of the said appointment, the Government had

sanctioned 20% of the grant also for the said wages for that

fixed period.

8. He further submits that the wages as has been paid to

the petitioner-workman were to be given from a particular

account which was specifically mentioned in the said

Resolution. He submits that, therefore, since there was a

proper Resolution in terms of the sanction accorded by the

C/SCA/7853/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2023

State Government, the contract of the petitioner-workman

came to an end on 13.12.1985. He further submits that

since no further sanction came to be granted by the State

Government, the contract of the petitioner-workman was

not extended.

9. He further denies that on the expiry of the contract, no

further services of the petitioner-workman were taken by

the respondent office. He, therefore, submits that the

impugned judgment and order is in accordance with law

and the same requires no interference. The writ petition be

dismissed.

10. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties

and perused the documents on record.

11. It is an admitted position in the present case that the

services of the petitioner workman came to be availed by

passing appropriate Resolutions for the duration for which,

he had worked and after taking appropriate sanction from

the State Government. It is further an admitted position

C/SCA/7853/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2023

that the petitioner-workman was being paid monthly wages

for the work and the same was accounted under accounting

head by the respondent- Taluka Panchayat Office.

12. It is also an admitted position in the present case that

that contract of the petitioner came to an end since there

was no further sanction accorded by the State Government.

13. The learned Labour Court has given a finding that by

Resolution No.183 dated 27.11.1984, the services of the

petitioner-workman were engaged for the period of 1.1.1985

to 31.12.1985 and thereafter, the said contract was not

renewed, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner-

workman was contractual. The said finding cannot be

faulted with factually in the present case. The petitioner was

not a daily wager as has come from the evidence on record.

Since, he was being paid monthly wages, therefore, also the

employment of the petitioner-workman was contractual in

nature.

14. In view thereof, the case of the petitioner would be

C/SCA/7853/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2023

covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. The petitioner is

not entitled for any relief as prayed for.

15. For the above mentioned reasons and observations,

the present writ petition is devoid of merits and is

dismissed. No order as to costs. Rule is discharged.

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) ALI