Gujarat High Court
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Rajendra N Soni on 21 February, 2024
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/793/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 793 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3729 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Sd/-
==================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to No
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of No
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of No
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India
or any order made thereunder ?
==================================================
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.
Versus
RAJENDRA N SONI
==================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR TR MISHRA(483) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Page 1 of 9
Downloaded on : Thu Feb 22 20:43:42 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/793/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024
undefined
Date : 21/02/2024
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)
The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent is filed by the original petitioners assailing the
correctness of the judgment and order dated 23.07.2021 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.3729
of 2007.
2. The prayer made in the writ petition before the learned
Single Judge by the appellants was to quash and set aside the
impugned award dated 24.04.2006 passed by the Labour Court
at Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.1879 of 1995 holding that
there is violation of the provisions of Section 25(G) & 25(H) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as to "the
Act") and therefore, the respondent was eligible for
reinstatement without back-wages.
3. Learned Single Judge held that the petitioners have failed
to lead any evidence with regard to the issue that respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/793/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024
undefined
had not worked for 240 days or any other issues that were
raised in the writ petition. Therefore, the learned Single Judge
was pleased to hold that there can be no fault found with the
reasoning and observations of the Labour Court and in view of
the letter of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, it clearly
appears that the workman - respondent has completed work for
274 days with the Corporation and therefore, there is a breach
of Section 25(G) & 25(H) of the Act. Therefore, the learned
Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition and uphold the
impugned award dated 24.04.2006 passed by the Labour Court
at Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.1879 of 1995.
4. The background of the facts which has led to the writ
petition before the Court is that the respondent was provided
the work as a Daily Wage Compounder from 24.07.1990 till
06.06.1992. The respondent was terminated from his services
with effect from 01.07.1992. Being aggrieved by the same, the
respondent approach the Labour Court by way of preferring a
Reference. The said reference came to be numbered as
Reference (LCA) No.1879 of 1995.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/793/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024
undefined
4.1 By way of an award dated 24.04.2006, it was adjudged
that there is no breach with regard to Section 25(F) of the Act.
However, there was a breach of Section 25(G) & 25(H) of the
Act and therefore, the respondent was awarded reinstatement
with continuity, but without back-wages. Therefore, the
petitioners - Corporation preferred a writ petition being Special
Civil Application No. 3729 of 2007. The learned Single Judge
after hearing both the parties, rejected the petition of the
petitioners. In such circumstances, the petitioners have
preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
5. We have heard learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for
the appellants - original petitioners and learned advocate Mr. U.
T. Mishra for learned advocate Mr. T. R. Mishra for the
respondent.
6. It has been contended by learned advocate Mr. H. S.
Munshaw for the appellants that the learned Single Judge as
well as the Labour Court have failed to appreciate the fact that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/793/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024
undefined
the respondent was offered work as a Badli Daily Wage
Compounder depending upon the availability of the work in
absence of regular and permanent post holder. The respondent
was not selected after following due procedure of recruitment
and was not holding any permanent and sanctioned post.
Therefore, the respondent who had worked hardly for a few
days in the year 1991 - 1992 purely on daily wage basis, would
not be entitled to reinstatement with continuity on a para
medical post after the gap of 29 years. Such post requires
continuous and consistent experience and therefore, the
respondent was not entitled or reinstatement.
6.1 It has further been contended by learned advocate Mr.
Munshaw that the learned Single Judge erred in not
appreciating that reinstatement with continuity after almost 30
years would result in to manifold administrative problems and
cause a heavy monetary burden on public exchequer.
Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw argued that this can
be a case of compensation but not for reinstatement.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/793/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024
undefined
7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. U. T. Mishra for the
respondent was working as a Pharmacist (Compounder) in the
Smt. Sardaben Chimanlal Municipal Hospital, which is run by
the appellant. The services of the respondent came to be
illegally and arbitrarily terminated which has resulted into an
industrial dispute. During the pendency of the writ petition
before this Court, interim relief was granted against
implementation and execution of the award and therefore, the
respondent was getting wages as required under Section 17(B)
of the Act.
7.1 It was further contended by learned advocate Mr. Mishra
that the learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties has
rejected the petition and confirmed the award on the basis that
the respondent had completed 240 days in the last 12 preceding
months before the termination. After his termination, the
petitioner has categorically employee, namely, Babubhai Patel
and therefore, there was a clear case of violation of mandatory
provisions of Section 25(H) of the Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/793/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024
undefined
7.2 It was further canvassed by learned advocate Mr. Mishra
that the respondent had no work experience reinstatement to
the post after 30 years would lead to utter failure, is a
misleading argument by the appellants. It was submitted that
the respondent had passed Pharmacy examination in the year
March, 1990. Thereafter, the Gujarat State Pharmacy Council is
taking examination every 5 years and as being a Pharmacist.
The respondent has appeared in the said examination in the
month of October, 2016 and thereafter, in the month of
February, 2022 and has passed the examination and license of
the Pharmacist was renewed. Therefore, he has experienced of
the post and even today he has qualified candidate.
7.3 It was further contended by learned advocate Mr. Mishra
that the respondent has filed an affidavit on oath and he has not
gainfully employee and he has not secured any alternate
employment and therefore, the award passed by the Labour
Court reinstating the respondent, which is confirmed by the
learned Single Judge is just and proper.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/793/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024
undefined
7.4 To substantiate his submission, learned advocate Mr.
Mishra for the respondent has relied upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court which is in the case of Jasmer Singh
versus State of Haryana and another reported in (2015) 4
SCC 458, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 9 has observed
that workman has rendered more than 240 days service and
there is a breach of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act then
even after a period of 30 years the workman was reinstated.
8. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties, it appears that the Labour Court as well as
the learned Single Judge has categorically observed that the
workman - respondent has filed documentary evidence and the
appellants - original petitioners have not filed any documentary
evidence. There is an admission by both the parties that with
regard to the factum of end of service of workman. Further, the
Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge have appreciated
the fact that the respondent has worked for 274 days. Further,
there is a documentary evidence that the persons, who is
appointed after the appellant, namely, Babubhai Patel has been
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/793/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024
undefined
retained and another employee, namely, Mr. Abdulkarim A.
Soniwala is appointed after the termination of the present
respondent. Such documentary evidences are placed on record.
9. Further, the documentary evidence of the Deputy
Municipal Commissioner is also produced at Exh.28 wherein it
is admitted that the respondent has worked for 274 days from
24.07.1990 till 06.06.1992. Therefore, in view of such finding,
we do not find any fault with the impugned award passed by the
Labour Court as well as the order passed by the learned Single
Judge. Resultantly, the appeal fails.
10. The present Letters Patent Appeal being devoid of merits
is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(N.V.ANJARIA, J.)
Sd/-
(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
