Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Water Supply And Sewarage Board vs Balubha Ashabhai Manek on 6 February, 2024
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/663/2020 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 663 of 2020
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20894 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 663 of 2020
==========================================================
GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWARAGE BOARD
Versus
BALUBHA ASHABHAI MANEK
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HARDEEP L MAHIDA(7112) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
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 : 06/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr.Hardeep L. Mahida
for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Mukesh
T. Mishra for the respondents.
2. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed
against common judgment and order of learned Single
Judge dated 06.03.2020 inasmuch as it relates to
Special Civil Application No. 20894 of 2017.
Thereby, learned Single Judge held that the
petitioner-respondent herein is entitled to the
benefit of continuity of service in view of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/663/2020 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2024
undefined
judgment and award of the Labour Court by giving
the continuity benefit. It was further directed to
grant to the petitioner the benefits flowing from
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
2.1 In the main petition, what was prayed by the
petitioner was to direct the respondents to grant
the continuity of service and to extend the
benefits of Resolution 17.10.1988 including payment
of arrears as also to extend the benefits of 5th
Pay Commission and 6th Pay Commission.
3. The case of the petitioner stated in nutshell
is that he worked under the respondent from 1992
and since the services were terminated with effect
from 01.05.1994, the workman invoked the
jurisdiction of the Labour Court, which was
Reference (LCJ) No. 60 of 1995. The Labour Court
passed the judgment and award on 24.06.2004
directing the reinstatement of the petitioner on
the original post without backwages. The said
award came to be confirmed by this Court in Special
Civil Application No.14375 of 2004 when challenged
by the authorities.
3.1 Thereafter, the petitioner came to be
reinstated in service. However, since earlier
services were not counted and the benefits under
Resolution dated1 17.10.1988 were not extended, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/663/2020 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2024
undefined
petitioner got issued legal notice through his
advocate. Since nothing yielded, the present
petition came to be filed. The petitioner submitted
that he is entitled for benefit of regular time-
scale with incremental benefits, leave encashment,
etc. and such other benefits flowing from the State
Government Resolution.
3.2 The main plank of contention on the part of
the authorities to oppose the prayer for grant of
benefit under Resolution dated 17.10.1988 was that
the reinstatement of the petitioner by the Labour
Court was without backwages and without continuity
of service. It was contended before learned Single
Judge, as also before this Court, that when the
continuity benefit was not mentioned in the part of
the award of the Labour Court, services of the
petitioner could not have been treated as
continuous to make him earn the benefits of
Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
4. Learned Single Judge while negativing the
contention, relied on the decision of the Supreme
Court in Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab [(2002)
9 SCC 492], in which the Supreme Court observed as
under,
"3. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on examining the materials on
record, we fail to understand how the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/663/2020 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2024
undefined
continuity of service could be denied once the
plaintiff is directed to be reinstated in
service on setting aside the order of
termination. It is not a case of fresh
appointment, but it is a case of
reinstatement. That being the position,
direction of the High Court that the plaintiff
will not get continuity of service cannot be
sustained and we set aside the part of the
impugned order. So far as the arrears of
salary is concerned, we see no infirmity with
the direction which was given by the lower
appellate court taking into account the facts
and circumstances including the fact that the
suit was filed after a considerable length of
time. That part of the decree denying the
arrears of salary stands affirmed and this
appeal stands allowed in part to the extent
indicated above."
(para 3)
4.1 Learned Single Judge also referred to the
another decision of the Supreme Court in
Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao v. Kosan Industries (P)
Ltd. [AIR 2020 SC 1776], as also other judgments
including the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in State of Gujarat v. Govindbhai
Ukabhai Parmar in Letters Patent Appeal No. 174 of
2017, decided on 11.07.2018 to assert the position
of law that once reinstatement is granted, the
benefit of continuity is deemed to have been
granted.
4.2 The continuity will have to be read in the
reinstatement and the workman who is reinstated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/663/2020 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2024
undefined
cannot be deprived of reinstatement. It is well
settled law that the Labour Court once awards
reinstatement to the workman, continuity of service
would follow as a matter of law. The continuity
benefit will have to be granted unless it is
expressly denied by the Labour Court.
5. Discussing the position of law elaborately,
learned Single Judge correctly recorded the
following observations and findings in paragraph 16
of the impugned judgment,
"The Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988
for the purposes of granting benefits for
computing the period of treating a workman in
continuous service falls back to support its
case on the provisions of Section 25(B) of the
Industrial Tribunal Act. Reading Section 25(B)
which is reproduced hereunder would indicate
that the workman shall be deemed to be in
continuous service for the period if his
service is uninterrupted. If there is
interruption for no fault of his, such
interruption cannot be termed as a `break in
service.' Keeping these provisions in mind,
therefore, which form the basis of granting
the benefits of Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988, the petitioners have to be treated
to be in continuous service from their initial
dates of appointment and granted the benefits
of the Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988."
6. This Court is in complete agreement with the
reasons recorded and the view taken by learned
Single Judge. The judgment and order books no
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/663/2020 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2024
undefined
error.
7. The present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed
as meritless.
In view of the dismissal of the Letters Patent
Appeal, Civil Application would not survive and
shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
BIJOY B. PILLAI
