Gujarat High Court
Chief Engineer (G) Gujarat Electricity ... vs Jivlabhai Bavjibhai Gamit on 3 September, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4563 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see No
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law No
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
CHIEF ENGINEER (G) GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD
Versus
JIVLABHAI BAVJIBHAI GAMIT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PARITOSH CALLA(2972) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 03/09/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act with the following prayers :-
"(A) To allow this petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2024
undefined
(B) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of certiorari
or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting
aside the judgment and award dated 22.07.2010 passed by the
Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Complaint (IT) No.1 of 1996 in Ref.(IT)
No.5 of 1987.
(C) To stay, the execution, implementation and operation of the
judgment and award dated 22.07.2010 passed by Industrial Tribunal,
Surat in Complaint (IT) No.1 of 1996 in Ref.(IT) No.5 of 1987 pending
admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition.
(D) To grant ad-interim relief in terms of Para-11 (C) hereinabove.
(E) To award the cost of this petition.
(F) To grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit by
this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice."
2. On 20.04.2011, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has
issued notice and thereafter the matter came up for hearing. On
13.09.2011, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while admitting
the matter has observed in Para-3 to 3.1, which reads as under :-
"3. Learned Advocate for the respondent strenuously contended
that the petition is required to be dismissed in view of the decisions of
this Court in the matter of (01) 'Virendakumar Jayantilal Ganatra Vs.
Gujarat Electricity Board, reported in 2005 (2) GLH 112'; 02) 'M/s.
Scooters India Ltd., Vs. M. Mohammad Yakub, reported in 2001 LLR
54' and the decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of
'Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank, Ltd., Vs Ramgopal Sharma 7
Ors., reported in 2002 (1) LLN 639.'
3.1 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that against the
judgement and order of the learned Single Judge in the matter of
'Virendrakumar (Supra)', a Letters Patent Appeal is pending before the
Court and incidentally it is notified today for final hearing."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2024
undefined
3. The petition is admitted on the ground that the very
provision which is under challenge before this Court, the petition
kept pending, wherein the issue with regard to service
Regulation more particularly Regulation No. 113 is under
challenge before this Court by way of preferring Special Civil
Application No. 9492 of 1996 with allied matters, which came to
be decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 01.04.2004.
3.1 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the
petitioner- Board has preferred LPA being Letters Patent Appeal
No. 1974 of 2004. The said appeal came to be decided by the
Division Bench of this Court vide oral judgment dated
19.11.2023. Thereafter, the said order was challenged before the
Hon'ble Apex Court by way of preferring SLP being Special Leave
to Appeal (Civil) No. 37677 of 2013. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide
order dated 13.12.2013 confirmed the order passed by the
Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, resultant effect of the
same, the present petition be decided on the said aspect.
4. Learned advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya for the petitioner -
board has submitted that the observation as observed by the
Division Bench of this Court, which is confirmed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, she is enable to assail to the order passed by the
Industrial Tribunal. It is also submitted that since the very
provision which is referred at the time of dismissal of the
workman is declared ultra-vires. It is also submitted that this
Court may pass appropriate order.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. P.C. Chaudhari for
the respondent-workman has submitted that in view of the order
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2024
undefined
passed by the Division Bench of this Court which was confirmed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present petition is not required to
be considered. It is also submitted that the very provision which
is referred and relied at the time of dismissal of the workman is
declared ultra vires and resultant effect of the said is that the
impugned order of the dismissal itself is null and void.
6. Considering the facts of the present case, the approval
application is itself dismissed by the concerned Tribunal and
since the dismissal itself is not held legal and valid by the
Industrial Tribunal, under such circumstances, the appropriate
order is required to be passed.
7. Considering the order passed by the Division Bench of this
Court which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and
considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocates
for the parties, this Court finds that it is undisputed fact that the
respondent- workman was dismissed under the provision of the
Regulation No. 113 and against which the petitioner- board has
preferred an application before the concerned Industrial Tribunal
for seeking approval under the provision of Section 33 (2)(b) of
the I.D. Act, the same was decided against the petitioner and the
same is challenged by way of this petition. This Court also finds
that the very provision is declared ultra-vires by this Court and
the same is confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore,
relying upon such, the order of dismissal itself is bad in law and
thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. The present petition is dismissed. The respondent-
workman is considered to be an employment till the age of his
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2024
undefined
superannuation and he is entitled for all consequential reliefs
and is to be paid all benefits which are flown from the original
employment. If any amount which is already paid to the
concerned workman, the same shall be adjusted against his legal
due and payable amount. After deducting the said amount, the
remaining amounts/ benefits whatsoever shall be paid to the
concerned workman within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of this order. Notice is discharged.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SALIM/
