Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Khumansinh Vechanbhai Vasava on 19 October, 2023
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1670/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1670 of
2023
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 24921 of 2023
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KHUMANSINH VECHANBHAI VASAVA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MANAN MEHTA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Applicant(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 19/10/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
While considering the present Civil Application filed by the
applicant-State seeking to condone the delay in preferring the Letters
Patent Appeal, since the papers of the Letters Patent Appeal were
available, with the help of learned Assistant Government Pleader
Mr. Manan Mehta, this Court could notice the controversy.
2. By judgment and order sought to be impugned in the proposed
Letters Patent Appeal of learned single Judge dated 29.4.2013, it was
directed to extend to the petitioner-respondent herein, the benefits under
the state government Resolution dated 17.18.1988 and to pay the arrears
arising by virtue of order of grant of such benefits within stipulated
period.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1670/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
2.1 The prayer in the main petition was to set aside order dated
3.12.2015 whereby the petitioner was refused to grant the benefits under
the Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
3. The petitioner was a driver appointed under the respondent in May,
1990. His services came to be terminated on 16.1.1996, pursuant to
which, industrial dispute was raised seeking reinstatment.
3.1 Reference (LCMN No. 342 of 1996 came to be decided by the
Labour Court, Nadiad, directing reinstatement of the workman on the
original post with 20% back wages. The challenge to the said judgment
and order failed, when Special Civil Application came to be dismissed.
Though the said judgment and order was passed and became final, the
benefits under Resolution dated 17.10.1988 were denied to the petitioner.
The denial of the benefits was on the ground that the petitioner was
appointed in the year 1990, that is after the date of Resolution, which was
17.10.1988.
4. The issue that even the daily wager employees, who are appointed
after the date of Resolution dated 17.10.1988, shall be covered and shall
be entitled to the benefits of the said Resolution, no longer res integra.
Learned single Judge noticed the said position of law to hold that the co-
ordinate Bench decided the very issue in Special Civil Application
No. 6420 of 2017.
5. It is to be observed that in Kutch District Panchayat vs.
Mangalbhai K. Rabari, which was Special Civil Application No.
15670 of 2005 decided on 8.10.2014, it was held that even the daily rated
employee employed after 17.10.1988, shall be entitled to the benefit of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1670/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
such Resolution. The said view was confirmed by Division Bench of the
this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1381 of 2015 decided on
4.1.2016. The Letters Patent Bench observed in para 7,
"...learned counsel for the respondent workmen contended that the
decision of the Supreme Court as cited herein above in case of State of
Gujarat Vs. PWD Employees Union & Ors (supra) would have
straightway applicability to the present case. The so called
inapplicability of GR has been answered squarely by the Court as there
are subsequent Government Resolutions clarifying such things. Besides
this, in the affidavit in reply at page-47 Courts attention was drawn to
indicate that G.respondent. Dated 17/10/1988 is clarified and given
effect to all those who are subsequently appointed also and that has been
accepted as policy governing such employment thereafter."
5.1 It was further stated in para 11,
"The Court is of the considered view that the GR dated 17/10/1988 was
no doubt containing reference to the future employment but the
subsequent course of action and developments as it indicate that the
Government continued employing daily wagers, temporary hands
irrespective of those conditions which gave rise to a situation where
litigations came up and hence as Shri Pathak has pointed out
clarificatory GR came to be issued and over all facts & circumstances of
the case indicate that the benefits of GR dated 17/10/1988 were to be
extended to all, else it would have meant to Government employing
unfair labour practice which would have been highly depreciable"
5.1.1 Learned single Judge rightly noticed the position of law to dismiss
the petition.
6. Since the challenge to the judgment and order of learned single
Judge impugned in the proposed Letters Patent Appeal evidently lacks
merits and even learned Assistant Government Pleader could not dispute
the position of law emanating from the said decision in Letters Patent
Appeal No.1381 of 2015 reproduced as above, no fruitful purpose would
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1670/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
be served in condoning the delay.
6.1 Therefore, the prayer for condoning the delay is refused. The Civil
Application is rejected.
7. Since the delay is not condoned, the Registry shall refuse the
registration of the Letters Patent Application, as also the registration of
Civil Application for stay.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
C.M. JOSHI
