Gujarat High Court
Bhikhabhai Pethabhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 23 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1637/2018 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1637 of 2018
==========================================================
BHIKHABHAI PETHABHAI PARMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANAN K PANERI(7959) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS HETAL PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 23/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the
following reliefs :-
"(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order,
direction and/or writ in the nature of mandamus and/or
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, directing the respondents to extend the benefit
of Government Resolution dated 17-10-1988 to the
petitioner on completion of 5, 10 years of service from
his initial date of appointment i. e. 1984;
(B) That Your Lordships be further pleased to direct the
respondent to extend the said benefit at least from the
date on which the juniors to the petitioner have been
extended the said benefit;
(C) Any other and such further relief as may be
deemed fit just and proper may be granted in the
interest of justice together with costs;"
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as a
daily-wager with the respondents since 1984 and his services came
to be terminated on 01.04.1992 without following any due
procedure of law. Aggrieved, the petitioner raised a dispute and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1637/2018 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2024
undefined
reference came to be made to the learned Labour Court,
Surendranagar. By the award dated 17.11.2006, the learned Labour
Court was pleased to partly allow the said Reference (LCS) No.232
of 1994. The learned Labour Court directed the respondents to
reinstate the petitioner in service without any back-wages.
2.1 Accordingly, the petitioner came to be reinstated in service by
the respondents in the year 2007. It is the further case of the
petitioner that the reinstatement of the petitioner is being
considered as a fresh appointment from the year 2007 and
accordingly, after completion of 10 years, the respondents have
extended the benefits of the Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988 in the year 2017.
2.2 Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present Special
Civil Application.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Manan Paneri appearing on behalf of
the petitioner workman submits that the petitioner was in service of
the respondents since 1984 and his services came to be terminated
on 01.04.1992. He submits that since the learned Labour Court has
not mentioned the words "continuity in service" in the award, the
respondents have treated the reinstatement of the petitioner as
fresh appointment and that the benefits of the Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 are being extended to him after
completion of 10 years in the year 2017. He submits that the said
action is illegal, discriminatory and contrary to the law laid down by
this Court. He, therefore, submits that the present Special Civil
Application be allowed and the petitioner be granted the benefits of
the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 from the date of his
initial appointment in the year 1984.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1637/2018 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2024
undefined
4. Learned AGP Ms. Hetal Patel appearing on behalf of the
respondents submits that the petitioner came to be dismissed from
the service on 01.04.1992 and thereafter, by the award dated
17.11.2006, the petitioner came to be reinstated without back-
wages. She submits that the learned Labour Court has not granted
any continuity of service, nor there is any mention of the same in
the award. She submits that the award came to be implemented
and the petitioner came to be reinstated in the year 2007 and
accordingly, after completion 10 years, since there was no
continuity in service granted by the learned Labour Court, the
reinstatement of the petitioner was considered as a fresh
appointment and therefore, the benefits of the Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 came to be granted to him on
completion of 10 years in the year 2017. She submits that the
services of the petitioner came to be regularized and he has been
paid all the benefits in terms of the Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988. She submits that in absence of any continuity in
service, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit prior to his
reinstatement in the year 2007. She, therefore, prays that the
present Special Civil Application be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and
perused the documents on record.
6. It is not disputed that the services of the petitioner came to be
terminated on 01.04.1992 and he came to be reinstated in the year
2007 in terms of the award dated 17.11.2006 which directed the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner without back-wages. The law
with respect to the issue of continuity in service in case of
reinstatement without back-wages is now well settled if the words
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1637/2018 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2024
undefined
"continuity in service" are not mentioned in the award. The Apex
Court as well as this Court in catena of judgments has held that
once the Labour Court awards the reinstatement without back-
wages and even if there is no mention of the words "continuity in
service", the same is inherent therein and has to be read
accordingly. When the learned Labour Court has not mentioned the
words "continuity of service", the benefit of continuity in service
cannot be denied to the workman. In the present case also, on
perusal of the award dated 17.11.2006, the same shows that the
continuity in service has not been specifically denied by the learned
Labour Court.
6.1 In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of
Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and ors. [(2002) 9 SCC
492], the petitioner herein is entitled to the prayers as prayed for in
the Special Civil Application. The present Special Civil Application is
accordingly allowed. The petitioner is held to be entitled to the
benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 from the
date his initial appointment in the year 1984. The respondents are
directed to grant all the consequential benefits to the petitioner
treating his service continuous from the date of initial appointment
in the year 1984. Such an exercise shall be completed within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
7. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
No order as to costs.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
cmk
