Gujarat High Court
Executive Engineer vs Hamirbhai Meghabhai Gohil on 3 February, 2025
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/508/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 508 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21123 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 508 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 508 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR.
Versus
HAMIRBHAI MEGHABHAI GOHIL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NILESH M SHAH(780) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 03/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants being
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/508/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgement and order
dated 03.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in
the captioned writ petition. The respondent herein had
prayed before the learned Single Judge to quash and set
aside the order dated 01.09.2015 to the extent of not
granting benefit of the Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988 with effect from 01.10.1988 to him. The
learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgement and
order allowed the petition and directed the respondents
to confer the benefits flowing from the Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 with effect from 01.10.1988
notionally upto 29.03.2007 and thereafter to give
difference of pay from 30.03.2007 to 30.06.2017. The
respondents were also directed to pay arrears
accordingly and the retirement benefits such as pension,
gratuity and leave encashment etc.
2. The facts of the case have been enunciated by the
learned Single Judge in the judgement and order and
therefore for the sake of brevity we reproduce the same
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/508/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
hereinbelow:
"3.1. The Petitioner was employed by the
respondent No.3 as a daily
wager labourer since 1978. The service of the
petitioner was orally terminated by the respondent
no.3 from 28.02.1985. Hence, petitioner had raised
the said dispute, which had been adjudicated in
Reference (LCS) No.115/2000. The respondent
no.3 had also orally terminated other three
co-employees hence, they had also raised the
disputes for the same. The Labour Court,
Surendrangar by a common award dated
29.03.2007, partly allowed the said reference by
directing respondent nos.2 and 3 to reinstate the
petitioner and other three co-employees on their
original posts without back wages.
3.2. Thereafter, against the said common award
dated 29.03.2007, the respondent nos.2 and 3 had
filed Special Civil Application No.1607 of
2009 to 1610 of 2010, which had been withdrawn
by order dated 24.02.2009 to file restoration
application before the Labour Court.
Thereafter, the respondent nos.2 and 3 had filed
Restoration Application being (ID) Misc.
Application No.8 of 2009 before the Labour Court,
Surendranagar against the petitioner, which was
dismissed by judgment dated 30.06.2010 on the
ground of delay. Hence, the respondent Nos.2
and 3 had filed Special Civil Application No.11455
of 2010, which was allowed by an order dated
15.10.2010 in which this Court had directed
the Labour Court, Surendrangar to hear and decide
(ID) Misc. Application No.8 of 2009 on merits.
Misc. Application No.5 of 11 (Old No.8 of 2009)
was decided on merits and was dismissed by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/508/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
judgment dated 13.04.2012. Against the said
judgment, respondent nos.2 and 3 had filed Special
Civil Application No.11486 of 2012, which is
dismissed by judgment dated 10.01.2013.
Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an
application for reinstatement to the respondent
no.3 on 11.02.2013, but however, the respondent
no.3 did not reinstate the petitioner. Ultimately,
by the order dated 01.07.2013 the respondent no.3
reinstated the petitioner on 01.07.2013.
3.3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Recovery
Application No.115/12 for claiming wages of
Rs.2,02,082-40 for the period from 06.04.2007 to
30.06.2012 as per minimum wage, which was
partly allowed by judgment dated 30.09.2013. The
petitioner had also filed Recovery Application
No.46/13 for claiming wages of Rs.46,144=80 for
the period from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 as per
minimum wage, which has been allowed
by judgment dated 17.03.2015."
3. What is apparent from the conspectus of facts is that
the only ground on which the respondent was denied the
benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988
from his initial date of appointment was that the Labour
Court vide award dated 29.03.2007 while examining the
case of the present petitioner and the co-employee
namely Danabhai Kalabhai in Reference (LCS) No.184 of
2000 had directed the respondent authorities to reinstate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/508/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
him on his original post but failed to record the direction
with regard to continuity of service.
3.1 The co-employee Shri Danabhai Kalabhai had
approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application
No.18154 of 2015 claiming the same relief as claimed by
the respondent herein and the said benefits were
conferred upon him. Thereafter, the appellant had
approached the Division Bench of this court by way of
Letters Patent Appeal No. 485 of 2017 against the order
passed in Special Civil Application No.18154 of 2015 in
the case of the co-employee. The co-ordinate bench of
this court confirmed the findings of the learned Single
Judge and rejected the appeal.
4. Today when the appeal is taken up for hearing, Mr.
Nilesh Shah, learned advocate for the respondent
workman points out that the decision of the co-ordinate
bench rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 485 of 2017
in the case of the co-employee of the respondent
workman was challenged by way of an SLP before the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/508/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
Apex Court. The Apex Court vide order dated 22.01.2024
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the findings of the
Division Bench.
5. Thus, the findings as well as the directions issued by
this court in case of the co-employee who was also a party
to the original reference filed by the respondent workman
have become final and therefore the same shall govern
the case of the present respondent as well. We therefore
find that there is no merit in the appeal so as to deny the
benefits to the respondent workman which already have
been given to said Shri Danabhai Kalabhai.
6. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed.
Rule is discharged. Interim relief if any shall stand
vacated. Connected civil applications shall stand
disposed of. No costs.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
(D. M. DESAI,J)
DIVYA
