Gujarat High Court
Narshibhai Meghabhai Jadav vs The Secretar, Bank Employees Consumers ... on 3 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14474 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
NARSHIBHAI MEGHABHAI JADAV
Versus
THE SECRETAR, BANK EMPLOYEES CONSUMERS AND CREDIT CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. ALKA B VANIYA(6945) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 03/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the award passed by
the learned reference court in Reference IT No.28 of
2018 whereby, learned labour court, Bhavnagar, vide
order dated 06.07.2024 has rejected the reference of the
petitioner claiming the benefits of regularization.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the petitioner
was working with the respondent, since 07.10.1983 and
his services were terminated in the year 1990 for which
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
dispute came to be raised before the learned labour
court which was registered as Reference IT No.441 of
1990. The said reference was awarded in favour of the
present petitioner on 02.12.2009 and directions were
issued to the respondent to grant the relief of
reinstatement with 20% back wages. The respondent has
paid wages by way of cheque to the petitioner on
26.03.2012 and 20.06.2011, which was accepted without
any protest and thereafter, petitioner had retired on
31.05.2015. After retirement, the reference came to be
filed before the Industrial tribunal, Bhavnagar being
Reference IT No.28 of 2018, requesting the learned
tribunal to issue directions to regularize the service of
the petitioner. Learned tribunal, after considering the
submissions and the evidence, rejected the reference,
which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Ms.Vaniya for the petitioner.
3.1. Learned advocate Ms.Vaniya submits that before he
retired, various representations were made to the
respondent-Authority to regularize the service, however,
respondent-Authority did not pay any heed. It is
submitted by the learned advocate Ms.Vaniya that on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
non receiving of any reply from the respondent, the
reference came to be filed before the learned reference
court in the year 2018. it is submitted by the learned
advocate Ms.Vaniya that even if after the reference,
when the petitioner has completed 240 days service with
the respondent-Authority, he would be entitled for the
benefits of regularization and by not granting the same,
learned reference court has committed error, therefore,
the impugned judgment deserves to be interfered with
and the petition is required to be allowed.
4. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocate for the petitioner and referring to the
reasons assigned by the learned labour court as well as
the record and proceedings, it is undisputed fact that the
reference which was filed challenging the order of
termination was awarded in favour of the petitioner
wherein, the learned labour court has directed to pay
20% back wages with relief of reinstatement.
Admittedly, no continuity of service was granted, neither
any consequential benefits were awarded. The said
award was passed by the learned labour court on
21.12.2009 and the respondent-Authority had paid the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
amount towards 20% back wages to the petitioner by
way of cheque on 26.03.2012 as well as 20.06.2011.
After getting retired on 31.05.2015, the instant
reference was filed claiming the benefits of
regularization in the year 2018.
4.1. This Court is of the view that when no evidence is
adduced regarding, following the recruitment process, in
absence of the relief of continuity of service and as the
petitioner was working as a Daily Wager, no directions
to regularize the service, where the appointment
directing to regularize the services can be issued, more
particularly, when the petitioner has attained the age of
superannuation on the date when the reference was
filed.
5. In view of the same, this Court did not find any infirmity
in the impugned judgment, hence this petition deserves
to be dismissed.
6. Resultantly this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
