Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat Through Range Forest ... vs Mukeshbhai Pragjibhai Baraiya on 18 June, 2024
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/467/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 467 of 2019
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1995 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
===============================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to No
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of No
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of No
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
===============================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH RANGE FOREST OFFICER & ORS.
Versus
MUKESHBHAI PRAGJIBHAI BARAIYA
===============================================================
Appearance:
MR. SAHIL TRIVEDI, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR RAJESH P MANKAD(2637) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 18/06/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. This appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/467/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
emanates from the order dated 12.12.2017 passed by the learned
Single Judge in the captioned writ petition.
2. Mr.Sahil Trivedi, learned AGP appearing for the petitioners -
State Department has submitted that the impugned order requires to
be quashed and set aside, since the respondent - workman had not
worked continuously during the period of 09 years that is during
October, 1991 to September, 2015 and such period is only
considered as notional. He submitted that in order to claim the
benefits under the resolution dated 17.10.1988, the respondent
should have worked for more than 240 days continuously for a
period of 10 years, which the respondent is not fulfilling. Thus, it
is urged that the present Letters Patent Appeal be allowed and the
impugned order may be set aside.
3. Per contra, Mr.Rajesh Mankad, learned advocate for the
respondent - workman contended that the appeal deserves to be
rejected and submitted that the issue raised in the writ petition is
already settled in catena of decisions. He submitted that in fact the
Labour Court has awarded continuity of service and once such
finding of the Labour Court has become final, as a sequel, the
respondent - workman will be entitled to the benefits arising from
the resolution dated 17.10.1988 by considering his entire service as
continuous.
4. The facts narrated by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned order dated 12.12.2017, indubitably reveals that after the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/467/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
respondent joined as a watchman on 09.07.1990, he rendered his
service continuously for more than two years and had completed
240 days in each year. Thereafter, his services were terminated,
which was THE subject matter of reference before the Labour Court,
Bhavnagar being Reference (LCB) No.419 of 1992. The Labour
Court, Bhavnagar, vide judgment and award dated 23.02.2005
allowed the said reference in part and directed the respondents to
reinstate the petitioner (respondent) with 25% back wages and with
continuity in service. The said decision was assailed by the present
appellants before this Court by filing writ petition being Special
Civil Application No.5490 of 2006, which was also dismissed vide
order dated 04.08.2006. Thus, the findings recorded by the Labour
Court granting continuity of service to the respondent workman
became final. The respondent workman was thereafter reinstated in
service in the month of July, 2007. However, he was not granted
the benefits accruing from the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 for the
reason that he did not work for the intervening period.
5. The issue raised in the writ petition as well as before the
Letters Patent Appeal, has already been laid quietus by various
judgments, as recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraph
No.4 and cited by learned advocate Mr.Mankad.
6. After considering the facts, the learned Single Judge has
observed thus:
"6. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties. I have gone through the impugned award by which it has
been directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with 25%
backwages and with continuity in service. The said award has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/467/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
become final and, therefore, though the petitioner had break up in
service pursuant to illegal termination, he is required to be treated
in service as the award itself. Therefore, contention raised by the
State about break in service is without any basis. Even otherwise,
the said issue has been decided by several Division Bench of this
Court in catena of decisions, this petition requires consideration.
7. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
this petition is allowed in terms of Para 5(A). The respondent is
hereby directed to extend the benefit of Government Resolution
dated 17/10/1988 read with Government Resolution dated
15/09/2014 and with all consequential benefits of fixation of pay,
grade pay, arrears, etc. and accordingly pay the same to the
petitioner as early as possible and preferably within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted ."
7. Thus, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the
directions issued by the learned Single Judge. The workman having
been granted the benefit of continuity of service and the same
being confirmed by this Court and also accepted by the appellate
authorities, as a necessary consequence, the workman would be
entitled to all the benefits arising from the resolution dated
17.10.1988 by considering the intervening period from termination
to reinstatement as continuous. The workman had remained out of
job due to illegal termination, hence he cannot be made to suffer
because of such illegal action by further denying him the benefit
accruing from the Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
8. The Letters Patent Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
Rule discharged.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
NAIR SMITA V./54
