Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Amratbhai Rughnathbhai Chamar on 25 September, 2023
Bench: Devan M. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1216/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1216 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10421 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1216 of 2023
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
AMRATBHAI RUGHNATHBHAI CHAMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR. MUKESH T MISHRA(5900) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 25/09/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Manan Mehta for the appellant state and its
authorities and learned advocate Mr. M.T. Mishra
for the respondent-workman.
2. Preferred under clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, this appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 24.08.2022 of learned
Single Judge, whereby learned Single Judge has
directed the respondent authorities to extend the
petitioners, the benefits flowing from the
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and to grant
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1216/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2023
undefined
all consequential benefits on similar lines, as
granted to the other employees ad per the order
dated 21.01.2021.
3. The respondent workman had been working as
Watchman under the respondent authorities between
the period 1988 to 1999. It appears that in view
of the order of termination passed against the
workman, he had to invoke the jurisdiction of the
Labour Court.
3.1 The Labour Court, Mehsana allowed the
Reference (LCM) No. 25 of 2009 holding that the
termination was illegal, further directing
reinstatement of the workman with continuity of
service, however without backwages. The said
judgment and award dated 16.08.2014 was challenged
by the State and its authorities by filing Special
Civil Application No.38 of 2015.
3.2. This Court by order dated 19.04.2016,
dismissed the petition of the State and confirmed
the judgment and award, thereby stamping approval
to the benefit of continuity.
4. In view of the continuity benefit having been
confirmed in favour of the petitioner, the
petitioner would become entitled to seek the
benefit of continuous service for entire period in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1216/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2023
undefined
accordance with the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to
entitle to receive the benefits under the said
Resolution. The continuity granted to the
petitioner shall have to be taken to its logical
end by treating the services of the petitioner
continuous to bring him within the fold of
Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
4.1 Learned Single Judge has rightly treated the
petitioner to be entitled to the benefits of
Resolution dated 17.10.1988. No interference is
called for.
5. In the course of hearing, it was stated by
learned advocate for the parties that the benefits
arising from the order of learned Single Judge has
been paid to the petitioner and the order is
complied with, although it was stated in the order
that the same would be subject to the outcome of
Letters Patent Appeal, which the State had proposed
to file, challenging the order of learned Single
Judge. Be as it may. Copy of the order dated
18.04.2023 paying the benefits to the respondent
workman pursuant to the impugned judgment and order
of learned Single Judge were produced before the
Court.
6. Letters Patent appeal is liable to be
dismissed for the reasons recorded above.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1216/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2023
undefined
7. It accordingly dismissed.
Civil Application would not survive in view of
the disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(D. M. DESAI,J)
BIJOY B. PILLAI
