Gujarat High Court
Dy. Executive Engineer vs Mamaya Govindbhai Lavadia on 8 January, 2024
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1323/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1323 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5705 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2023
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1323 of 2023
==========================================================
DY. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Versus
MAMAYA GOVINDBHAI LAVADIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SANJAY UDHWANI, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5,6,7,8,9
MR MUKESH H RATHOD(2432) for the Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4.1,4.2,4.3,7
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date : 08/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sanjay
Udhwani for the appellant State and learned advocate
Mr.Mukesh Rathod for all the respondents.
2. The challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is directed
against judgment and order dated 24.6.2022 in which learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1323/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
single Judge issued the following directions, extracting from
para 7, allowing the petition.
"The respondents are directed to extend the benefits of
the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the
petitioners. The exercise of computing the benefits and
payments on the basis of 31.12.2007 as the relevant
date be done within a period of ten weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this order."
3. The respondent- workmen, some of them now stand
representated by their heirs and legal representatives, initially
joined the services as daily wagers under the appellant between
the years 1994 to 1996. It appears that when their services came
to be terminated on different dates, in 1998 and prior thereto.
They had an occasion to invoke the jurisdiction of the labour
court in Reference (LCR) No.78 of 1997 seeking reinstatement
with continuity of backwages and the arrears of salary, putting
forth their case inter alia that they had been discharging their
duties since last ten years, were paid Rs.900/- towards salary
and that despite there was no fault of theirs, their services came
to be terminated orally on 21.3.1994. By judgment and award
dated 17.10.2006, the labour court granted reinstatement with
continuity of service but without backwages.
3.1 The State challenged the judgment and award of the
labour court by filing Special Civil Application No.17188 of 2007
and other allied petitions, interim order came to be passed on
11.12.2007 by this court. The stay was granted on condition that
the workmen shall be reinstated on or before particular date.
The State challenged the said interim order also by filing Letters
Patent Appeal No.886 of 2008.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1323/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
3.2 While the said Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on
2.7.2009, Letters Patent Bench observed thus to state that the
reinstatement shall remain subject to outcome of the petition.
"Though we agree that the conditional stay granted by
the learned Single Judge amounts to refusal of interim
relief pending the petition, we are unable to agree that
the refusal of interim relief pending the petition would
amount to dismissal of the petition. The reinstatement
of the workman in service pending the petition would
necessarily be subject to the result of the petition.
Such employment can not create equity in favour of the
workman."
3.3 The workmen were reinstated in the year 2010-11. The
writ petition filed by them came to be disposed of on 10.10.2016.
The court set aside the benefit of continuity, however the
reinstatement which was done in the year 2010-11 was not
disturbed and came to be confirmed.
3.4 It was thereafter that the instant Special Civil Application
was filed to pray for granting of benefits flowing from Resolution
dated 17.10.1988 in view of the order passed by the labour
court. As per the operative part of the directions extracted
above, learned single Judge granted the benefits under
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 from 31.12.2007. It was stated that
the said directions came to be complied with by the State
authorities during the pendency of the contempt petition which
was subject to outcome of the present Letters Patent Appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1323/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
3.5 Learned single Judge observed that the interim order
dated 11.12.2007 stipulated that the workmen would be
reinstated before 31.12.2007, therefore took the said date to be
the relevant date before the grant of benefits.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader called in question
the grant of benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 from the
said date by submitting that interim order was passed by the
court on 11.12.2007 in which the court had observed that the
reinstatement would be by way of interim relief only. It was his
submission that subsequently the continuity benefit was not
granted by this court, for the purpose of counting continuous
years of service, the date of interim order would not be the base
but it should be the date of disposal of the petition. It was
submitted that reckoned from that date, the petitioners did not
complete the requisite number of length of service to be entitled
to the benefits of the Resolution.
5. The submission is misconceived. The reinstatement was by
way of an interim order, it was thereafter confirmed when the
petitions were dismissed excepting the continuity, therefore
reinstatement is liable to be treated as validated from the date
when the petitioners were taken into service pursuant to the
interim order. All the intervening stages from the date of interim
order stood regularized, especially the reinstatement in view of
the final order.
5.1 In the above view, learned single Judge was eminently
justified in adopting as a base, the date of 31.12.2007 before
which the workmen were ought to be reinstated, for extending
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1323/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
the benefits of Resolution from such date.
6. No error is committed by learned single Judge.
Interference is not required in the impugned judgment and
order of learned single Judge.
7. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
Manshi
