State Of Gujarat vs Kanitbhai Saburbhai Prajapati
2023 Latest Caselaw 2200 Guj

     C/SCA/10237/2017                             ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10237 of 2017

                                 With
             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10238 of 2017
                                 With
             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10239 of 2017
                                 With
             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10240 of 2017
                                 With
             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10241 of 2017
                                 With
             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10242 of 2017
==========================================================
                     STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)
                               Versus
               KANITBHAI SABURBHAI PRAJAPATI & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AYAAN PATEL, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                            Date : 13/03/2023
                             ORAL ORDER

1. The present Special Civil Applications are filed by the

State of Gujarat against the impugned judgment and

awards passed by the learned Labour Court, Nadiad in

Reference Nos.48, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 54 of 2007 whereby

the respondent workmen have been granted reinstatement

along with continuity in service and with 25% back wages.

C/SCA/10237/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023

2. The brief facts common to all the cases are that all the

respondent workmen were working as Class IV employees

in the office of the petitioners since more than 12 years and

they all were terminated on 27.03.2006. Aggrieved, all the

respondent workmen preferred Reference (LCM) Case

Nos.48, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 54 of 2007 in the Labour Court

at Nadiad. No documentary evidence came to be adduced by

either of the parties. Based on the oral evidence, the learned

Labour Court disposed of all the References holding that

there was violation of Section 25(f), (g) and (h) of the

Industrial Disputes Act and directed the reinstatement of

the respondent workmen on their original posts with

continuity in service and 25% back wages for the

interregnum period.

3. In the present cases, the learned Advocate for the

respondent workmen Mr.U.T. Mishra submits that the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application

11291 of 2018 and other allied matters and also in Special

Civil Application 12166 of 2018 has dismissed the writ

C/SCA/10237/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023

petitions preferred by the petitioners herein. He submits

that the respondents workmen in those cases as well as in

the present cases, are similarly situated and were working

for the petitioners. They all were terminated on the same

day i.e. 27.03.2006. He submits that, therefore, several

References came to be filed together in the Labour Court at

Nadiad. He submits that though individual awards have

been passed, but similar reliefs have have been granted to

all the respondents workmen i.e. reinstatement on the

original posts along with continuity in service. He further

submits that in those cases decided by the Co-ordinate

Benches, since the References were dismissed for default,

and thereafter, restored after a long time, therefore, no back

wages were awarded in those cases. He submits that,

however, in the present cases, there were no dismissal for

default of the Reference cases before the Labour Court, and

therefore, in these present cases, the respondents workmen

have been awarded 25% back wages.

4. Mr.Ayan Patel, learned AGP appearing for the

C/SCA/10237/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023

petitioners does not dispute the fact that the respondent

workmen in the cases decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court were working for the petitioners in the same

office and were terminated on the same day. He submits

that all the workmen were Class IV employees. He further

does not dispute that all these workmen had preferred

similar References before the Labour Court, Nadiad which

came to be disposed of individually. He submits that he has

verified the fact situation with respect to the respondent

workmen and submits that they all were working in the

same office and were similarly placed. He submits that in

those cases, no back wages have been awarded. However, in

the present cases, 25% back wages have been awarded. He,

therefore, submits that in the present cases also, no back

wages should have been awarded as done in the case of the

other respondent workmen in the cases decided by the other

Co-ordinate Benches of this Court.

5. Mr.U.T. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondents

workmen submits that in the present cases, there were no

C/SCA/10237/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023

dismissal for default of the Reference pending before the

Labour Court, and therefore, in the present cases, he

submits that the Labour Court has rightly granted the back

wages to the extent of 25% in view of the violation of Section

25 (f), (g) and (h) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He,

therefore, submits that no interference is called for in the

impugned judgment and awards.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents on record.

7. It is not in dispute that the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court has dismissed the Special Civil Application No.11291

of 2018 and other allied cases by common judgment and

order dated 26.02.2021. Thereafter, another Special Civil

Application No.12166 of 2018 was also dismissed vide order

dated 07.10.2021 by another Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court. It is not in dispute that the present respondent

workmen are similarly situated employees and were

terminated on the same day i.e. 27.03.2006. It is further not

C/SCA/10237/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023

disputed they were all serving in the office of the petitioners.

8. In view of the aforesaid observations and the orders

passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court as above

mentioned, as well as considering the fact that no

documentary evidence was led by the petitioners in the

Reference proceedings before the Labour Court, the findings

arrived at in the impugned orders need no interference. The

present Special Civil Applications are devoid of merits and

the same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) ALI