Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Rural Development ... vs Pushpaben Bhimabhai Desai on 11 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29345/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 29345 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
GUJARAT STATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
Versus
PUSHPABEN BHIMABHAI DESAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS KAMANI, LD. ADVOCATE MR PH PATHAK(665) for Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date: 11/01/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner- corporation has filed this petition
challenging the award of Labour Court, Navsari dated
23.08.2007 in Reference (LCN) No.219 of 2002. In the award
dated 23.08.2007, Labour Court directed the petitioner-
corporation to reinstate the respondent in service with
continuity but without backwages.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29345/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
2. Facts, in brief, are as under:
2.1 The petitioner is a Government Corporation, which
undertakes various activities for implementation of projects and
schemes assigned to it under various programs of the Central
and the State Government. It is case of the petitioner that
various schemes and projects were executed and implemented
through different offices situated across the State of Gujarat,
wherein the petitioner-corporation was having one such office
at Navsari. One project at the relevant time, was assigned to
the petitioner-corporation for training and upliftment of women
and development of children in the rural areas, known as
"Rural Women and Child Development Schemes" [DWAKRA],
introduced by the Central Government with the financial aid
from UNICEF.
2.2 It is case of the petitioner that to run such project, a
letter dated 28.01.1998 was addressed by the District Rural
Development Agency, Valsad to the petitioner. Under the said
letter, petitioner was instructed to train rural women by
conducting training programs. Having come to know about
such program, the respondent addressed a letter dated
28.04.2000, requesting to assign work to M/s. Sonal Classes.
Pursuant to that, work was entrusted to M/s. Sonal Classes for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29345/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
training women of rural areas for their development as
specified under the project.
2.3 It was case of the respondent that she was appointed and
thereafter, her services were terminated. Aggrieved by which,
she raised a dispute before Labour Court, Navsari, wherein
upon adjudication, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the
respondent-workman with continuity but without back wages.
Aggrieved by the order, present petition is filed.
3. Heard Mr. H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate for the
petitioner and Ms. Kamani, learned advocate for the
respondent.
4. Mr. H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner
submitted that the award of the Labour court is erroneous on
the following grounds :
4.1 That the petitioner is not a workman under the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act as she was not offered
work by the corporation. As evident from the communication
dated 28.04.2000 at Annexure "B", the respondent applied for
work to be assigned to M/s. Sonal Classes. The project was for
specified time period and upon completion of training the
project was to discontinue. Therefore, it was not perennial nature
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29345/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
of work and therefore, reinstatement awarded is erroneous.
4.2 Placing heavy reliance on letter dated 28.04.2000-
Annexure "E" to the petition, he submitted that a letter was
addressed by the respondent in the name of Sonal Classes,
where she informed the petitioner-corporation that she was
running the classes for training women and requested to assign
the work. Therefore, it was a project-based work assigned to
M/s.Sonal Classes. The Labour Court, therefore, erred in not
considering that there was no employer-employee relation
between the petitioner and the respondent and therefore, the
award is contrary to the facts on record. Most importantly, if
the respondent was not a workman, the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act would not be applicable. Once there is
no employer-employee relationship, the Labour Court, Navsari
was not competent to entertain the reference and therefore, the
award is bad in law.
4.3 Referring to the written statement, he submitted that
every aspect was placed before Labour Court by written
statement, wherein they have stated that question of
termination or prior notice before termination would not be
required as the respondent was not a workman. In the written
statement, it was specifically stated that training program was
one of the projects to be completed by the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29345/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
corporation and given to the M/s. Sonal Classes.
4.4 Most importantly, the corporation was registered under
the provisions of the Companies Act and wound up now. No
activities are entrusted to it by the State and therefore also,
question of implementation of the award would not arise.
5 On the other hand, Ms. Kamani, learned advocate for the
respondent submitted that the award of the Labour Court is
legal. Relying on the findings, she submitted that as no
documents were produced by the petitioner in support of their
submissions, she was not employed by the corporation, and
therefore, no interference is required.
5.1 Learned Advocate submitted that as per the statement of
claim, the workman was working from 1998 to 2001, and was
paid accordingly. Since, she had completed 240 days in a year,
her termination without following due procedure is erroneous
and therefore, Labour Court has rightly awarded reinstatement
with continuity of service. Though several documents were
called for, they were not produced by the petitioner and
therefore, adverse inference was drawn. No interference is
required at this stage.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29345/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
6. Considered the submissions. It is noticed that the
workman made an application to get work of training women
in rural area of Navsari. The program was for upliftment of
women and development of children in rural areas. The
application was made pursuant to the scheme introduced by
the Central Government known as "Rural Women and Child
Development Schemes" [DWAKRA], funded by UNICEF.
Accordingly, M/s. Sonal Classes run by the workman was
selected to fulfill the project of training women of rural areas.
7. From the written statement, it is clear that the project
was to be completed from the grant, given to the corporation
by the State Government. The petitioner- Corporation had
stated that they did not have independent finance to run any
project and once such project got over, the appointment or
assignment of work would automatically stand completed.
8. Further, from the letter of workman dated 28.04.2000 it
is evident that she was running the classes in the name of
M/s. Sonal Classes and she requested the petitioner to entrust
said work to classes. Thus, submission of learned advocate for
the petitioner that work was assigned to M/s. Sonal Classes
under the project merits acceptance. From scheme of the
project and the areas, selected by the State Government for
such project, it is evident that the project was for temporary
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29345/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
period and only for training women. Once the training period
got over and report was prepared, it would amount to
completion of project.
9. In view of the above facts, in the opinion of this court,
the findings of the Labour Court that the petitioner was
appointed on monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/- is contrary to the
facts on record. Most importantly, merely non-production of
documents by the petitioner like Attendance sheet, pay
register, Identity card, etc. would not ipso facto prove that the
respondent was a workman of petitioner. The petitioner had
produced terms and conditions applicable to the corporation
and payment made to the respondent. Despite that, the same
were not considered, which in the opinion of this court is
erroneous.
10. Further, admittedly, no appointment order was given to
the respondent and she was assigned work to train rural
women. Once such project got over, the work automatically
stands completed and therefore, there is no question of illegal
termination, as observed by the Labour Court. Moreover, it
cannot be ignored that today the petitioner-corporation, is no
more in existence and no work has been entrusted by the
government to the corporation and therefore, the question of
reinstatement would not arise.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29345/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
11. In view of the above, particularly when the work was
assigned to one M/s. Sonal Classes to train rural women, the
same cannot be termed as appointment of the respondent and
therefore, the award of the Labour Court deserves to be
quashed and set aside. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
The award of Labour Court, Navsari dated 23.08.2007 in
Reference (LCN) No.219 of 2002 is hereby quashed and set
aside. Stay granted earlier stands vacated. Rule is made
absolute. No order as to costs.
(MAUNA M. BHATT, J)
DIPTI PATEL
