Jetpur Navagadh Municipality ... vs Anakbhai Bhimbhabhai C/O. Jetpur ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2314 Guj

     C/SCA/12430/2008                            ORDER DATED: 16/03/2023




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12430 of 2008

==========================================================
       JETPUR NAVAGADH MUNICIPALITY THRO. CHIEF OFFICER
                           Versus
          ANAKBHAI BHIMBHABHAI C/O. JETPUR NAVAGADH
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHAVESH P TRIVEDI(2731) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RR TRIVEDI(941) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                            Date : 16/03/2023

                             ORAL ORDER

1. The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the following reliefs :-

"(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the Judgment and Award Dt. 25-2-2008 passed by the Presiding Officer Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference L.C.R. Case No.397 of 1991.

(b) Pending admission and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, implementation, operation or execution of the Judgment and award Dated 25-2-2008 passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer Labour Court Rajkot in Reference L.C.R. No.397 of 1991 may kindly be stayed.

(c) Any other and further relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may kindly be granted in the interest of Justice."

C/SCA/12430/2008 ORDER DATED: 16/03/2023

2. The factual matrix in the present case is as follows :-

2.1 It is the case of the respondent workman that he was appointed by the petitioner Municipality on 28.10.1987 as a watchman on the drinking water tank maintained by the petitioner Municipality. The respondent workman was given periodical appointments as under :-

          29-10-87 to 26-11-87           29 days
          27-11-87 to 30-04-88           5 months
          03-05-88 to 30-09-88           4 months
          13-10-88 to 30-11-88           49 days
          17-12-88 to 31-03-89           3 months 15 days
          06-06-89 to 31-12-89           6 months
          01-02-90 to 30-04-90           3 months
          01-05-90 to 31-07-90           3 months
          02-08-90 to 31-10-90           3 months
          01-11-90 to 31-01-91           3 months
          From 01-02-91 terminated


2.2     It is the further case of the respondent workman that on

01.02.1991, when he made an application for regularization of his services since he was continuously working from October, 1987 till January, 1991, his services came to be terminated abruptly without any notice. The respondent workman immediately raised an industrial dispute on 07.02.1991. The conciliation proceedings failed. The learned Assistant Labour Commissioner made a reference being Reference (LCR) No.397 of 1991 to the learned Labour Court, Rajkot.

2.3 The summons came to be issued to the petitioner Municipality. The parties led the evidence in support of their

C/SCA/12430/2008 ORDER DATED: 16/03/2023

contentions. By the impugned judgment and award, the learned Labour Court, Rajkot was pleased to partly allow the reference. The termination of the respondent workman was held to be in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and he was directed to reinstated along with 50% back wages.

2.4 Aggrieved, the petitioner Municipality has preferred the present Special Civil Application.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Bhavesh Trivedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner Municipality submits that the respondent workman was appointed on daily basis and therefore, he has no permanent right on the post. He submits that his appointment was purely on contractual basis and as specified in the order of appointment, at the end of contractual period, the services of the workman would automatically come to an end. He further submits that the learned Labour Court has not interpreted Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act in its true spirit and in the present case, the termination of the respondent workman would not amount to any retrenchment, but it is a result of non-renewal of contract. He submits that lastly, the respondent workman was appointed for a period of three months i. e. from 01.11.1990 to 31.01.1991 and thereafter, on 01.02.1991, his services came to an end. Therefore, he submits that the present Special Civil Application be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Anand Gogia appearing on behalf of the respondent workman submits that the respondent workman has led cogent evidence to show that he worked from 29.10.1987 till 31.01.1991. He submits that the respondent workman has put in continuous service from 29.10.1987 till 31.01.1991 with small motivated breaks. He further submits that

C/SCA/12430/2008 ORDER DATED: 16/03/2023

the respondent workman has proved his case before the learned Labour Court and the reasoning given by the learned Labour Court is after considering the contentions of the parties and the evidence brought on record. He submits that there is a categorical finding that there is a violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and discontinuance of services of the respondent workman was in the nature of retrenchment since he had given an application for regularization of his services. He, therefore, submits that the present Special Civil Application be dismissed and the impugned judgment and award of the learned Labour Court be upheld.

5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record.

6. It is not disputed that the respondent workman had made an application on 01.02.1991 for regularization of his services. It is also not disputed that the respondent workman worked with the petitioner Municipality from 29.10.1987 till 31.01.1991 with small motivated breaks. The learned Labour Court has rendered a categorical finding that in the present case, the appointment was being granted to the respondent workman for 29 days in a month and at some time, three months, four months, five months and six months at a stretch.

7. In view thereof, the learned Labour Court has come to the conclusion that in the present case, the termination of the respondent workman was in violation of Section 25F and the same amounts to retrenchment. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the findings as rendered by the learned Labour Court are based on cogent and proper reasons. No interference is called for in the impugned judgment and award. The Special Civil Application is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.

C/SCA/12430/2008 ORDER DATED: 16/03/2023

8. It is further jointly submitted by learned advocates for the parties that pursuant to order dated 18.12.2008 passed by this Court, the respondent workman came to be reinstated by the petitioner Municipality on 26.12.2008. Further, pursuant to the said order, the petitioner Municipality has also deposited a sum of Rs.1,72,534/- with the Registry of this Court towards 50% back wages as awarded by the learned Labour Court by way of impugned judgment and award. It is further submitted that the respondent workman has since superannuated from service in May, 2021.

9. The respondent workman is directed to make an appropriate application to the Registry of this Court for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.1,72,534/- along with the interest as accrued on it. Upon such an application being made by the respondent workman, the Registry shall process the same and release the said amount along with interest after due verification and following due procedure within one week.

10. Disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)

cmk