Gujarat High Court
Dharmendra Mohanbhai Rathod vs Sarpanch, Valiya Gram Panchayat, ... on 20 January, 2023
Bench: Niral R. Mehta
C/MCA/119/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 119 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8864 of 2019
==========================================================
DHARMENDRA MOHANBHAI RATHOD
Versus
SARPANCH, VALIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT, KUSUMBEN A. GOHIL OR HER
SUCCESSOR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PUSHPADATTA VYAS(1296) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 20/01/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
While heated arguments were advanced by both
the sides in respect of compliance or otherwise of the order of
the Court brought under contempt, in the ultimate analysis,
the Court found that the controversy remaining was narrow.
2. On the last occasion, that is 04 th January, 2023, the
Court had an occasion to pass the following order reflecting
the subject matter controversy and developments taken place
with regard to compliance of the directions required to be
obeyed by the respondent Gram Panchayat.
"The directions in the judgment and award of the Labour Court
dated 12.03.2019 in Reference (LCB) No. 271 of 2013 came to be
confirmed by learned single Judge while deciding Special Civil
Application No. 8864 of 2019. These directions, confirmed as
above, are complained of to have been not complied with.
Therefore, this Misc. Civil Application under the Contempt of
Court's Act, 1971 came to be filed by the applicant workman.
2. The first direction was regarding reinstatement of the
applicant on the original post. The second part of the direction
was in respect of payment of back wages to the extent of 20%.
C/MCA/119/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2023
The third direction was about grant of continuity in service and
payment of consequential benefits.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Pushpadatta Vyas stated that the
applicant has been reinstated. He further made a statement that
the applicant has foregone 20% back wages. In this view, the said
parts of the directions travelled out of the consideration.
4. The third limb of benefit regarding grant of continuity and
payment of consequential benefits, is required to be attended to
by the respondent authorities.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Hemant Munshaw for the
respondents stated that affidavit will be filed on the said aspect
on or before 19.01.2023."
2.1 As noted above, the third aspect of grant of benefit
of continuity and payment of consequential benefits was the
actual aspect to be attended by the respondent authorities.
The Court considered the controversy in that light.
3. Responding to the above, learned advocate Mr.H.S.
Munshaw invited attention of the Court to Resolution dated
17th January, 2023 (Annexure-A, Page No.124) figuring with
the further affidavit of the Sarpanch dated 17 th January, 2023.
Thereby the General Body of the Panchayat expressly resolved
to grant continuity of service to the applicant. This was in
compliance of the direction of the Labour Court finally sought
to be implemented in this contempt proceedings.
4. With regard to grant as aforesaid of continuity,
learned advocate Mr.Pushpadatta Vyas made a grievance that
though continuity is granted, no consequential benefits have
been ensued for the applicant.
4.1 This was responded by learned advocate for the
Gram Panchayat invited attention to para-2 of the
C/MCA/119/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2023
aforementioned affidavit in which it was reiterated thus,
"... the applicant who was paid a monthly remuneration of
Rs.9835/- pursuant to resolution dated 5.8.13 passed by the Gram
Panchayat was earning monthly salary of Rs.9835/- at the time
when he was discontinued from employment. It is submitted that
the applicant was the only employee on clerical side in a small
Gram Panchayat of Valiya and no new appointment was made
after termination of his service and there was no decision or
resolution of the Gram Panchayat for enhancement of salary of
clerical staff member. It is submitted that accordingly the
applicant herein is paid a monthly fixed remuneration of Rs.9835/-
after his reinstatement in employment. "
4.1.1 It was further stated unequivocally that,
"... the Gram Panchayat has not passed any resolution or taken
any policy decision with regard to pay scales for its employees
and therefore there is no question of grant of pay scale or revision
of pay scale to the applicant. ...."
4.2 On the basis of the averments in the affidavit,
learned advocate for the Gram Panchayat further submitted
that all other staff members including safai kamdars and part-
timers are paid lesser amount of remuneration duly fixed by
the Gram Panchayat in view of financial condition of the Gram
Panchayat.
5. When the Court queried the applicant to show as to
whether any benefit has flown to him on the count of
continuity in past, except referring to certain Resolutions of
the Panchayat about payment of such benefit, learned
advocate could not demonstrate that any actual benefit had
accrued or paid to the applicant as may have been paid on the
score of continuity of service.
5.1 The record suggested that the applicant has been
getting fixed pay of Rs.09,835/-. There was no gainsaying that
C/MCA/119/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2023
on the date when the award was passed by the Labour Court
and the question of compliance of the directions regarding
reinstatement and other benefits including continuity arose,
the applicant was not paid any other tangible benefit except
fixed pay as above.
5.2 The Resolutions referred to by the applicant
reflected that benefits resolved to be granted to the applicant
was made subject to the sanctioning of the expenditure by the
State Government. It was not shown that any such further
developments have taken place.
6. In the aforesaid view, the Court is not persuaded to
hold that any contempt much less willful contempt is
committed by the Gram Panchayat. If the case of the applicant
is that continuity benefit to the applicant would enure for him
the benefits of pay-scale and pension in light of the
Resolutions earlier passed by the Gram Panchayat, it may be
the case to be agitated accordance with law in separate
proceedings, if advised.
6.1 The contempt jurisdiction is not required to be
exercised in view of the fact situation obtained as above.
7. The contempt proceedings are accordingly closed.
Notice is discharged.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
ANUP
