Gujarat High Court
District Development Officer vs Govindbhai Mangalbhai Valand on 21 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17663/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17663 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13299 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13149 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17664 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
==========================================================
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & ANR.
Versus
GOVINDBHAI MANGALBHAI VALAND
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR MUKESH H RATHOD(2432) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 21/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the award passed by
the learned labour court, Nadiad directing the present
petitioner-District Development Officer, Kheda District
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17663/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
Panchayat to pay the compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- to
the respondent in lieu of the reinstatement and back
wages.
2. As in all the petitions identical question are involved, the
same is decided by this common judgment. The Special
Civil Application No.17663 of 2021 where, the petition is
filed by the employer challenging the lump sum
compensation awarded by the learned reference court
and the employee has filed the petition being Special
Civil Application No.13149 of 2022 claiming the
reinstatement to his original post with continuity of
service and back wages. Special Civil Application
No.17664 of 2021 is filed by the employer against the
said award granting the lump sum compensation of
Rs.1,25,000/- and Special Civil Application No.13299 of
2022 is filed by the employee claiming the relief of
reinstatement with back wages.
2.1. Facts involved in the present petitions are that the
years 1985, 1986 and 1987 were consecutive years for
scarcity and femine in the state of Gujarat, therefore,
after notifying the scarcity, various relief works were
undertaken in the interest of the public at large and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17663/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
accordingly the respondents were appointed on scarcity
relief work for the period of 29 days on temporary and
ad-hoc basis, on the condition that they are posted as a
Work Charge employee by the Taluka Development
Officer, Mehmadavad vide order dated 20.10.1987. On
closing down of the scarcity relief work, the respondent
was relieved vide order dated 18.06.1988 and
challenging the disengagement of the service, the
reference was filed after the period of four years before
the learned lavourt court. The said reference was
allowed by the learned labour court on 29.03.2006
against which the petitions came to be filed being
Special Civil Application No.24251 of 2006 alongwith
other petitions which came to be allowed by this Court
on 08.02.2007 remanding the matter back to the learned
labour court for deciding a fresh.
2.2. Learned labour court, after considering the
submissions and the evidence adduced has allowed the
reference in favour of the workman partly by granting
the lump sum compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- in lieu of
the reinstatement with back wages which is subject
matter of challenge before this Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17663/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Munshaw for the employer
and learned advocate Mr.Rathod for the employee.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that
appointment was made for 29 days on purely temporary
and for ad-hoc work to meet with the requirement of
scarcity relief work on several terms and conditions and
as the said relief work was discontinued, the
respondents were relieved from the service. Learned
advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that as per the decision
rendered by full Bench of this Court in the case of
H.K.Makwana Versus State of Gujarat & Others
reported in 1989 (1) GLR 396, the employment offered
to the persons on the scarcity relief work as undertaken
by the State cannot be said to be employment in
Industry as defined under section 2(J) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "ID
Act"). Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that
though specific contentions were raised before the
learned labour court, with regard to the jurisdictional
aspect, without assigning any reasons dealing with the
said contention the lump sum compensation was
awarded in favour of the respondent.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17663/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that the
workmen in his statement of claim has categorically
admitted that his appointment was made for the scarcity
relief work, therefore, there was no further evidence
required to be adduced before the learned reference
court. However, by overlooking the judgment rendered
by the full Bench of this Court, the impugned award is
passed and therefore, same is required to be interfered
with and the petition filed by the employer is required to
be allowed and the petition filed by the employee is
required to be dismissed
5. As against the same learned advocate Mr.Rathod
appearing for the employee submits that initially the
appointment was made in the month of March, 1987 and
in the month of August, 1987 the workman was relieved
from the work. Learned advocate Mr.Rathod submits
that again in the month of October, 1987, the
appointment was made and thereafter, without following
the procedure prescribed under the act the termination
order was passed. Learned advocate Mr.Rathod submits
that though appointment was made on 22.09.1987 for 29
days till 11.06.1988, the respondent has worked
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17663/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
continuously with the employer. Learned advocate
Mr.Rathod submits that for this period of nine months
the respondent has worked for 243 days and considering
the same, learned labour court has held that termination
is illegal and lump sum compensation is awarded.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Rathod submits that when the
learned labour court has held the termination illegal,
instead of awarding lump sum compensation the relief of
reinstatement ought to have been granted, however,
without granting the same, error has been committed by
the learned labour court and therefore, petition filed by
the employee claiming the relief of reinstatement along
with other consequential relief is required to be allowed
and the employer's petition is required to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties and
considering the evidence adduced along with the memo
of the petition, it is undisputed fact that as per the
statement of claim filed by the workman it is admitted by
the workman that their appointment was made for the
scarcity relief work. It is further stated in the statement
of claim that after calling the names from the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17663/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
employment exchange and following the procedure of
the interview, the appointment was made on 22.09.1987
which continued up to 18.06.1988. On referring the
appointment order it emerges that the appointment was
made for the period of 29 days and for the work of
scarcity relief.
8. Learned advocate Mr.Rathod submits that though initial
appointment when made in the month of September,
1987, there was no reference with regard to the scarcity
relief work, however, again the appointment was made
in the month of October, 1987. If arguments made by
the learned advocate Mr.Rathod is tested with the
appointment order made in the month of October, 1987,
then it is undisputed that even if he was relieved after
the appointment made in the month of September, 1987,
but when he was appointed in the month of October,
1987, the work was specified, i.e. of scarcity relief work.
In that background the said contention is not required to
be taken into consideration.
9. At this stage the decision rendered by the full Bench in
Special Civil Application No.5056 of 1987 is required to
be referred to wherein, the full Bench has held that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17663/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
employment offered to the persons on the scarcity relief
work cannot be said to be an employment in a Industry
as defined under section 2(J) of the ID Act. The following
observations are made by the full Bench while deciding
the above questions which are reproduced herein
below:-
"12. Whether judgment in the case of J. J. Shrimali requires
reconsi- deration because of the decisions in the case of Sanjit
Roy (AIR 1983 SC 328) and in the case of Des Raj (AIR 1988 SC
1182):
Before considering this contention it would be appropriate to
quote observations from the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of C.I.T. v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd., 1992 (4) SCC
363, wherein the Court has held that the judgment of the
Supreme Court must be read as a whole and the observations
from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the
questions which were before the Court and that it is not proper to
regard a word, a clause or a sentence occuring in a judgment as
containing a full exposition of the law on a question when
question did not even fall to be answered in that judgment. The
relevant observations are as under:
"It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a
sentence from the judgment of this Court, divorced fiom the
context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the
complete 'law' declared by this Court. The judgment must be read
a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be
considered in the light of the questions which were before this
Court. A decision of this Court takes its colour fiom the questions
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17663/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
involved in the case in which it is rendered and while applying
the decision to a later case. the Courts must carefully try to
ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision of this
Court and not to pick out words sentences from the judgment,
divorced from the context of the questions under consideration by
this Court, to support their reason-ings. In Madhav Rao Scindia v.
Union of India, [1971 (1) SCC 85], this Court cautioned:
It is not proper to regard a word, a clause or a sentence occurring
in a judgment of the Supreme Court, divorced from its context, as
containing a full exposition of the law on question when the
question did not even fall to be answered in that judgment."
Keeping this aforesaid principle in mind, we would consider the
decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjit Roy
(AIR 1983 SC 328). In that case, the Court considered whether the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is applicable to the workmen
employed in the famine relief works. For deciding the said
question, the Court mainly relied upon Art. 23 of the Constitution
of India and held that where a person provides labour or service
to another for remuneration which is less than the minimum
wage, the labour or service provided by him clearly falls within
the meaning of the words 'forced labour' and attracts the
condemnation of Art. 23. Every person who provides labour or
service to another is entitled at least to the minimum wages and
if anything less than the minimum wage is paid to him he can
complain of violation of his fundamental right under Art. 23. No
doubt, in that case, the Court has observed that the relief work
undertaken by the State by way of famine relief is useful to the
society and productive in terms of creation of some asset or
wealth and when the State exacts labour or service from the
affected persons for carrying out such work, for example, a bridge
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17663/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
or a road which has utility for the society and which is going to
augment the wealth of the State, there can be no justification for
the State not to pay the minimum wage to the affected persons.
As stated earlier, in the aforesaid case, the Court has not at all
considered the provisions of Sec. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act
or the definition of the word 'industry'. Therefore, in our view,
the aforesaid decision would not have any bearing in deciding the
question as to whether the relief work undertaken by the State
Government would be 'industry' or not.
At this stage, we should not lose sight of the subsequent judgment
rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development
Horticulture Employees' Union (1992 (4) SCC 99). In that case, the
Court has specifically observed that in the context of such
schemes, it is wrong to approach the problems of those employed
under such schemes with a view to providing them with full
employment and guaranteeing equal pay for equal work, and if
such interpretation is given, it would benefit a few at the cost of
the many starving poor for whom the schemes are meant. It may
force the State to wind up the existing schemes and forbid them
from introducing the new ones, for want of sources. In our view,
these observations would aptly apply to such type of relief
undertakings during such calamities. Even if the State intends to
give full-fledged benefits to a few at the cost of the many starving
poor the probable result may be devastating and/or riotous.
Similarly, in the case of Des Raj (supra), in one appeal the
appellant before the Supreme Court was working as a foreman in
the Mechanical Construction Division under the Irrigation
Department and in another appeal, the appellant was working as
T. Mate in the P.W.D. Drainage Division. Before the Court, the
question was whether the Irrigation Department of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17663/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
Government is 'industry' or not. The Court observed that, as the
amended statutory definition is not yet in force, the parent
definition and judicial pronouncements have to be referred to for
finding the law. The Court thereafter referred to various decisions
including the decision in the case of Bangalore Water Supply
(supra) and observed that the main functions of the Irrigation
Department when subjected to the Dominant Nature test clearly
come within the ambit of industry. In our view, in this judgment,
the Court was not required to consider the question which is
posed in this matter. The question was altogether different and
was based upon the projects carried out by the Irrigation
Department of the concerned State and the said judgment would
have no bearing on the question which is required to be dealt
with in this matter.
Similarly, in our view, the decision of the Patna High Court in
the case of Bihar Relief Committee (54 FJR 385), would not
require much consideration because in that case the petitioner,
Bihar Relief Committee. was established as a society under the
Societies Registration Act with the sole object rendering relief to
the suffering caused by natural calamities like flood, drought,
epidemic etc. to humanity. After considering various facts, the
Court observed:
"The petitioner has undertaken minor irrigation schemes in the
State for which it opened various centres for constructing open
bore wells, tanks and tube wells after obtaining the advice of
technical experts. It stores articles for such works and maintains
plants and machineries for which depreciation, wear and tear and
running charges are charged. In supplying pipes to the farmers it
charges them the costs incurred in transportation and storage. All
these establish that the activities of the petitioner are systematic."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17663/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
The Court has finally held that the Bihar Relief Committee is an
industry within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, In the
present case, in our view, the work is not organised by a society
but it is organised by the State in discharge of its inalienable
duty. Further, the relief undertakings, as stated above, are casual
and not continuing one.
Lastly, in the case of Umayammal v. State of Kerala, 1983 (1) LLJ
267, the Kerala High Court considered the question whether the
provisional or temporary employees working in Government
Departments, Government Companies, Statutory Corporations and
Local Bodies were governed by the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act. There also, the Court relied upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply (supra) and
it is made clear that the sovereign functions of the State cannot
be included in industry, but if there are industrial units severable
from the essential functions and possess an entity of their own, it
may be plausible to hold that the employees of those units are
workmen and those undertakings are industries. In our view, the
aforesaid decision of the Kerala High Court would not advance the
contentions raised by the learned Advocates for the petitioners.
Conclusions :
In the result, we entirely agree with the decision rendered by this
Court in the case of J. J. Shrimali [1989 (2) GLH 12 (1989 (1)
GLR 396)] and it does not call for any reconsideration.
For the reasons recorded above, we answer the questions referred
to us, as under:
The employment offered to the persons on the scarcity relief
works as undertaken by the State cannot be said to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17663/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
employment in 'industry' as defined by Sec. 2(j) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 mainly because,
(a) it is the primary and inalienable function of the State to
provide livelihood to the persons who are affected by the natural
calamities such as famine, earthquake, epidemic, flood, scarcity,
etc., and
(b) admittedly, the relief work is not a 'business' or 'trade' and
with regard to the 'undertaking', the activity is not analogous to
trade or business or that it is not a systematic activity but is
carried out casually at different places depending on the calamities
in a particular area.
The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of J.
J. Shrimali [1989 (2) GLH 12: (1989 (1) GLR 396)] that scarcity
relief work undertaken by the State is not 'industry' as defined by
Sec. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is well sustained."
10. It is required to be noted here that though specific
contentions were raised before the learned reference
court with regard to the jurisdictional aspect and
disputed by the employer as not satisfying the
ingredients of 2(J) of the ID Act, no reasons assigned by
the learned reference court to disbelieve the case of the
employer as the issue with regard to the scarcity relief
work is not an Industry is no more res integra, wherein,
this Court has held that relief work undertaken by the
State during drought, femine etc. for providing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17663/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
employment to the needy is not industry, but is the
performance of duty in exercise of sovereign functions.
Hence, this Court does not deem it fit to discuss further
and go into the questions raised by the learned advocate
for the employee. The petition filed by the employer is
required to be allowed in view of the decision rendered
by the full bench in the case of H.K.Makwana Versus
State of Gujarat & Others (supra).
11. Resultantly, the petition filed by the employer being
Special Civil Application No.17663 of 2021 and 17664 of
2021 is hereby allowed and award passed by the learned
labour court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No.250 of 1992
dated 04.10.2019 is hereby set aside and petition filed
by the employee being Special Civil Application
No.13299 of 2022 and 13149 of 2022 is hereby
dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
