Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bhayabhai Hardasbhai Rada on 3 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16202/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16202 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
BHAYABHAI HARDASBHAI RADA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR.KRUTARTH K PANDYA(7092) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 03/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya
waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1.
2. This petition is filed by the State challenging the award
passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajkot in reference (I.T.)
Case No.124 of 2016 dated 07.12.2019 whereby, the directions
were issued upon the present petitioners to grant the benefit of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16202/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
G.R. dated 17.10.1988 from the year 2012 and the interregnum
period from the year 2012 to date of award i.e. 07.12.2019 for
the notional benefit.
3. Heard learned AGP Mr. Brahmbhatt for the State and
learned advocate Mr. Pandya for the respondent No.1.
3.1 Learned AGP Mr. Brahmbhatt states that reference was
filed before learned Labour Court, Rajkot stating that the
respondent is entitled for the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988
from the date of completion of 240 days, which was decided in
favour of the respondent. Learned AGP Mr. Brahmbhatt submits
that present respondent was serving as a daily wager and has not
been recruited after due process and has not served continuously
for 240 days. Learned AGP Mr. Brahmbhatt submits that at
present work was given to the employee through contractor and
therefore, no benefit under G.R. dated 17.10.1988 can be given
to the present respondent. Learned AGP Mr. Brahmbhatt submit
that without considering the same, the award is passed in favour
of the respondent, therefore, same is required to be set aside
and the petition is required to be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that as on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16202/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
date also the respondent is working with the petitioner
establishment. On relying upon presence roster and the wage
register, learned Labour Court has awarded the reference in
favour of the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits
that as per the evidence adduced by the petitioner, he completed
240 days in the year 2012 and therefore, learned Reference
Court has granted the benefit from the year 2012 onwards.
Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that at present though the
work was taken under the different contractors but the wages
are paid less than minimum. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya
submits that after considering the evidence in detail, the award is
passed in favour of the respondent, therefore, no interference is
required and the petition is required to be dismissed.
5. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for
the parties as well as evidence adduced before the learned
Reference Court, it transpires that as per Mark 13/1, the
respondent has completed 303 days in the year 2012, though the
claim was made by the respondent that he is serving as a daily
wager since 26.07.2005 but the learned Reference Court has
awarded the reference relying on the evidence adduced by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16202/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
present petitioner. Though, so called contract agreement was
called by the learned reference Court, however, no documentary
evidence was placed to show that present respondent is the
employee of the contractor. Learned Reference Court, after
considering the evidence placed by the present petitioner, has
awarded the reference in favour of the respondent by granting
the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 from the year 2012 and it
was also directed to consider the interregnum period i.e. from
the year 2012 to year 2019 for the notional benefit and this Court
does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. The
impugned order is hereby confirmed and the benefits to the
respondent-employee shall be paid within a period of 12 weeks
from date of this order.
6. In that view of the matter, the present petition is dismissed
being devoid of merits. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
Vikramsinh Amarsinh
