Gujarat High Court
Bhavnagar District Panchayat vs Kantibhai Rajabhai Boricha on 13 February, 2024
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/722/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 722 of 2020
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21570 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2020
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 722 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?
==================================================
BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT & ANR.BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT
Versus
KANTIBHAI RAJABHAI BORICHAKANTIBHAI RAJABHAI BORICHA & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR. MUKESH T MISHRA(5900) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 13/02/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)
The present Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/722/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
Letters Patent is filed by the original respondents assailing the
correctness of the judgment and order dated 06.03.2020 passed by
the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 21570 of
2017.
2. The prayer made in the writ petition before the learned Single
Judge by the original petitioners - present respondents was to give
appropriate directions to grant benefits of Government Resolution
dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioners on completion of 20 years of
service and further direct to grant arrears arising out of it with 8%
interest thereon.
3. The learned Single Judge held that once the Labour Court has
come to the conclusion that the termination of the petitioners were
ineffective and since it was in violation of provisions of the Industrial
Tribunal Act, reinstatement was directed. Continuity would
therefore, naturally follow. It was further directed that the continuity
is to be read into the awards passed by the Labour Court, the entire
period of service right from the date of reinstatement has to be
treated as continuous and uninterrupted.
3.1. It was further observed by the learned Single Judge that the
petitioners were beneficiaries of the award of the labour court and
implicitly the benefit of continuity of service has to be read in such
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/722/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
awards. Their past services have to be treated as services for the
purposes of granting them the benefits of Government Resolution
dated 17.10.1988. It is this direction which is challenged in this
present appeal.
4. The background of facts which has led to filing of the writ
petition are that the original petitioners were working in the
respondents from the year 1983. The services of the original
petitioners were terminated pursuant to which, the petitioners raised
an industrial dispute, which came to be numbered as Reference
(LCB) Nos. 219 to 266 of 1989. On 17.01.2000, the labour court
passed an award directing the respondents to reinstate the
petitioners on their original post with back wages. This award came
to be challenged before this Court by preferring writ petition being
Special Civil Application No. 6017 of 2000. By way of judgment and
order dated 24.08.2005, this Court modified the award and
confirmed the reinstatement and set aside the portion of back-wages.
4.1. The said judgment and order passed by the learned Single
Judge is not challenged any further and has attained finality. The said
direction given by the learned Single Judge in writ petition being
Special Civil Application No. 6017 of 2000 is as under,
"6. In the result, the petition qua respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/722/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 17 th January,
2000 passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference
[L.C.B.] No. 219 to 226 of 1989, qua backwages is quashed
and set aside and rest of the award is confirmed. The petitioner
shall reinstate respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6 in service within one
month from the date of receipt of this Court and shall grant all
the benefits accordingly within a period of three months
thereafter. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with
no order as to costs."
4.2. Pursuant to the judgment and order dated 24.08.2005, the
original petitioners were reinstated in service, but continuity was not
granted and they were paid minimum wages. On this factual aspect,
the original petitioners preferred writ petition on the ground that
they have completed more than 25 years of service and were entitled
for the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which
benefit was denied to them by the respondents. The learned Single
Judge allowed the writ petitions, against which, the present appeal is
preferred.
5. We have heard learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the
appellants and learned advocate Mr. M. T Mishra for the
respondents.
6. It has been contended by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw that
the respondents - original petitioners were offered work on daily
basis with effect from 21.05.1986 on public works depending upon
availability of the work and were offered work up to 07.01.1989. It
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/722/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
was further contended that the learned Single Judge has not
appreciated the fact that the respondents were not offered work on
any permanent and sanctioned posts and no recruitment procedure
was followed while providing work to the respondents on daily basis.
It was further contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in
not appreciating that Reference No. 224 of 1989 and Reference No.
221 of 1989 respectively were allowed partly on 17.01.2000 by the
labour court, Bhavnagar and there was no order with regard to
continuity in service to daily wagers. Lastly, it was contended that
the learned Single Judge had not appreciated the fact that almost 11
years had passed in between the date of termination i.e. on
07.01.1989 and award dated 17.01.2000 and therefore, once the
award of back wages was quashed, award as regards reinstatement
was confirmed and the respondents original petitioners would not
have been given continuity nor back wages.
7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Mishra for the respondents -
original petitioners had contended that the respondents have
completed 25 years of service according to Section 25B of the
Industrial Disputes Act. He has further submitted that the labour
court had granted continuity of service which was upheld by this
Court and, therefore, the respondents - original petitioners were
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/722/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
entitled for the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
Learned advocate Mr. Mishra has relied upon the following
decisions:-
(i) In the case of Kutch District Panchayat & Ors., v.
Mangalbhai K. Rabari & Ors., rendered in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 1381 of 2015 dated 04.01.2016.
(ii) In the case of Amreli District Panchyat & Ors., v.
Pravinkumar Nanalal Trivedi & Ors., rendered in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 901 of 2016 dated 03.10.2016.
8. Further, it was contended by learned advocate Mr. Mishra that
this issue being confirmed by this Court, the appeal is required to be
dismissed.
9. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates
appearing for the parties, one glaring fact is required to be noted is
that the award passed by the labour court on 17.01.2000, which was
challenged before this Court. However, this Court vide order dated
24.08.2005 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6017 of 2000 has
categorically observed that - 'the appellant shall reinstate the
respondents within one months from the date of receipt of writ of
this Court and shall grant all the benefits accordingly within a period
of three months thereafter. The said order dated 24.08.2005 has
attained finality.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/722/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
10. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it appears that it is not
in dispute that the respondents were initially appointed in the year
1983 and continued till the year 1989. In the year 1989, the services
of the respondents came to be terminated and, therefore, industrial
dispute was raised whereby, the labour court partly allowed the
reference, which award has also become final, except for the part of
backwages.
11. Pursuant to the award of the labour court, the respondents are
reinstated in service and continued as such. Apart from the order of
the labour court, the respondents are actually working for more than
20 years on daily wages.
12. In that view of the matter, we see no reason not to grant
benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The Government
Resolution would apply to extend benefits to those working on daily
wage basis. We do not find any merit in the appeal and we hereby
confirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
13. Resultantly, the appeal being meritless, same is dismissed. No
orders as to costs.
Consequently, connected Civil Applications would not survive
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/722/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
in view of the disposal of Letters Patent Appeals.
Direct Service is permitted.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
phalguni
