Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Majur Mahajan Shangh on 25 January, 2024
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/866/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 866 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4730 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 866 of 2022
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MAJUR MAHAJAN SHANGH
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR AK CLERK(235) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 25/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
By judgment and award dated 2.9.2015 passed in
Reference(D) No.27 of 2001, the Labour Court, Jamnagar
directed that the first-party employer - the appellant herein
shall extend the benefits of permanency to the five workmen
from March, 2008 who had approached the labour court. It
was further provided in the award that since reference which
was filed in the year 2001 was withdrawn in the year 2008
and subsequently came to be restored, the benefits for the
period from 1997 till February, 2008, shall be counted only on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/866/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2024
undefined
notional basis.
2. Five workmen named Shri Jaysukhbhai Veljibhai Kamani
who was Clerk, Shri R.V.Jadeja - the Watchman, one Shri
J.S.Jadeja also Watchman, Shri R.A.Solanki as well as Shri
S.Y.Chauhan, both Khalasi, sought relief from the labour court
that they were entitled to be made permanent with effect from
1.2.1997 to receive all permanency benefits. It is submitted
that Shri Jaysukhbhai Veljibhai Kamani has passed away
whereas Shri R.A.Solanki has retired in the year 2016. Be as
it may.
3. In the statement of claim (Exh.5) before the labour
court, the case was put forth that the five workmen had been
working on the respective posts from 24.6.1990, 7.7.1990,
24.3.1990, 1.1.1994 and 15.6.1993 respectively, that they had
put in around ten years of service having completed in each
year 240 days to make the services continuous. It was stated
that the workmen who were otherwise Khalasi possessed the
qualification of SSC, therefore the work of Clerk was obtained
from them.
3.1 In the reply to the statement of claim (Exh.6) the first-
party employer took a stand inter alia that since the
recruitment of the workman was after 1.10.1988 they may not
be made entitled to the benefits flowing from Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
3.2 The labour court considered and dealt with the oral and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/866/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2024
undefined
documentary evidence before it in relation to the claim made
by the workman. On behalf of the workman Shri Jaysukhbhai
Veljibhai Kamani was examined (Exh.52). The documentary
evidences whereby the said rojamdaar employees were taken
on work-charged establishment were also considered. On
behalf of the first-party employer one Bhimareddy Yaraguppi
(Exh.94) was examined. Upon consideration of evidence of the
witness of the first-party employer (Exh.94), the labour court
recorded finding that all the workmen were engaged in office
related work which was of permanent nature. It was stated
that the set up was sanctioned for the office and in such set-
up the workmen were engaged to discharge the work and
duties as per the posts in mahekam.
3.3 Denial of benefits under Resolution dated 17.10.1988
could not be justified on the ground that a employee or
workmen was engaged after 1.10.1988, such contention was
rightly rejected by the labour court. It is to be noted that the
continuous nature of services rendered by all the workmen
was accepted by the employer -appellant herein. All the
workmen were extended with effect from 1.1.2006. The
benefits flowing from the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as per
the order passed on 9.3.2007 came to be granted during the
pendency of the proceedings of reference.
3.4 Learned single Judge while dealing with the challenge
to the judgment and award of the labour court as above at the
instance of the appellant State, noticed the factual position
about the respective dates from which the workman were in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/866/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2024
undefined
service and that they had served uninterruptedly to complete
240 days.
3.5 It was observed thus,
"Perusal of the award would indicate that it was the case
of the workmen that they were working with the
respondent. The dates from which they have been
working with the respondent have been set out by the
Tribunal. It is undisputed that the respondents have been
working with the petitioner from 24.6.1990, 7.7.1990,
24.3.1990, 1.1.1994 and 15.6.1993. It was their specific
cases before the labour Court that they have
uninterruptedly in service for the period of 240 days
overall these years. The nature of work that they were
carrying out was permanent in nature; that there was
a set up of sanctioned posts on which they were
working; that continuing them for long tenure of
service without having the benefits of regular pay-
scale would amount to unfair labour practice. The
reasonings enunciated by the labour Court would
indicate that the workmen have been examined at
Exh.52 is the deposition of Jaysukhbhai Veljibhai who
has produced documents at mark 25/1 to 25/10.
Similarly, the other four workmen have also
produced documents before the labour Court as set
out in paragraph No.4 of the award."
3.6 The evidence of the first-party employer (Exh.94) was
highlighted in para 5 and it was recorded that the witness
could not dispute that the respondents -workmen has been
working on a sanctioned set up, which finding came to be
reiterated by learned single Judge in para 6 of the order.
4. While learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shruti
Dhruve was unable to successfully assail the aforesaid
findings of fact recorded by the labour court as well as by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/866/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2024
undefined
learned single Judge and the relief granted as per the
judgment and award, it was harped by her that since the
reference was withdrawn in the middle by the workmen, the
benefits could have been granted legitimately only from the
date when the reference was restored in the year 2014.
5. Since it was not becoming clear from the judgment and
award of the labour court as to why the reference was
withdrawn at one stage and came to be restored at a later
juncture, the court asked learned advocate Mr.A.K.Clerk
appearing for the respondent- workman to clarify the aspect.
5.1 In response, learned advocate for the respondent
submitted that on 27.9.2006, the labour court had passed
interim order to grant benefits of Government Resolution
dated 17.10.1988 to all the five workmen and on 22.12.2006
the order came to be passed by the State Government. The
benefits were actually granted on 9.3.2007. In view of the
grant of benefit, the Union gave an application on 24.6.2007
withdrawing the reference in question, upon which the labour
court passed the award permitting the withdrawal of the
reference on 17.2.2008. Subsequently, however, the State
Government cancelled the order dated 9.3.2007 whereby the
benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988
were extended to the workmen.
5.2 The workmen had to file Special Civil Application
No.5846 of 2011 in which this court passed order granting
liberty to the workman to revive the very reference. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/866/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2024
undefined
reference which was withdrawn was accordingly revived on
1.3.2014.
5.3 It was thereafter that the reference came to be decided
as per the judgment and award which later came to be
impugned before learned single Judge.
5.4 The interim order of the labour court granting the
benefits to the workman under Resolution dated 17.10.1988,
the order dated 9.3.2007 passed by the State Government and
the withdrawal of the said order on 17.2.2008, the order of
the State Government dated 21.3.2011 cancelling the
benefits, are the events which were undisputed in view of the
copies of the order produced by learned advocate for the
respondent- workman. Since the orders were part of the
record of the proceedings, learned Assistant Government
Pleader was not in position to dispute the factual position
emanating therefrom. In that view, the same shall remain as
part of the record of the appeal.
5.5 Thus, it could be clearly seen that the reference was
withdrawn at the time when the benefits under the
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 were extended,
however, the workman had an occasion to seek the revival of
the reference as the State Government passed order
cancelling the said benefits. The withdrawal was not a
culpable act but was guided by the reason of grant of benefit
and the revival thereof was due to cancellation of benefits.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/866/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2024
undefined
5.6 When this situation obtained, the labour court could not
be said to be at an error to grant the benefits as per the
judgment and award passed by it from 1.1.1997. In any view
the period from date of withdrawal till the revival of reference
has been taken care of by granting only notional benefits
thereby balancing the rights of the parties.
6. In view of the forgoing reasons and discussion, this court
does not see any reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order of learned single Judge confirming the
judgment and award of the labour court.
7. The meritless Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.
The Civil Application will not survive in view of disposal
of the Appeal. Accordingly, it is disposed of.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
Manshi
