Gujarat High Court
Jatinbhai Chhibubhai Patel vs Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage Board on 14 February, 2024
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1030/2016 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1030 of 2016
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13584 of 2013
==========================================================
JATINBHAI CHHIBUBHAI PATEL
Versus
GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD & 4 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHIKHA PANCHAL with ADITI S RAOL(8128) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KRUTIK PARIKH, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 14/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL)
1. Heard Ms. Shikha Panchal, learned advocate appearing for
the appellant, MR. Hamesh Naidu, learned advocate
appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Krutik Parikh,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State-
respondents.
2. Having gone through the order passed by the learned Single
Judge, noticing that the record transpired that the petitioner
was appointed through a contractor , namely Respondent
No.5 herein and the challenge was to the termination of
services of the petitioner with effect from 30.03.2013, we find
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1030/2016 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
no infirmity of the order of the learned Single Judge noticing
that the prayer of regularization treating the respondent
No.1, namely Board as principal employer in terms of the
Government Resolution, cannot be ascertained.
3. It is further noted that by the learned Single Judge that there
is factual dispute of direct relationship of employee and
employer with the respondent Board, which cannot be
determined within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. The dispute between the parties would attract the
provisions of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition
Act, 1970 and the status of the petitioner being employee of
the Board is to be established by leading evidence.
4. Noticing the above factual aspects of the matter recorded by
the learned Single Judge, we do not find any infirmity in
relegating the petitioner to approach the competent
Industrial Forum. However, the operative part of the
judgment and order dated 01.08.2016 is modified to the
extent that it is open for the petitioner to invoke jurisdiction
of the Industrial Forum by initiating appropriate reference
seeking benefits of declaration against the termination, as
also regularization of his services in light of the Government
Circulars dated 17.10.1988, 08.06.1989 and 30.11.1994. It is
further clarified that all issues raised in the writ petition are
kept open to be agitated before the Industrial Forum.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1030/2016 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
5. With the above observations, the present appeal stands
dismissed.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
SUDHIR
