Gujarat High Court
Range Forest Officer vs Bipin Maharya Bagul on 7 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6250/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6250 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6682 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6813 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6875 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6897 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7002 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7025 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7219 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
RANGE FOREST OFFICER
Versus
BIPIN MAHARYA BAGUL
==========================================================
Appearance:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since the issue raised in the these petitions are similar,
they are being decided by a common judgment.
2. These petitions are filed by the State under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the
award passed by the learned Labour Court, Valsad,
directing the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.
65,000/- to Rs. 75,000/-, considering their tenure of
service in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6250/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025
undefined
benefits. As per the case of the respondents, as stated in
the statement of claim, it is alleged that they have been
serving in different posts for the last six to seven years.
Details of all the petitions are mentioned hereinbelow:
Sr. SCA No. Date of Name and category of Remarks
no. judgment respondents
1. 6250/2024 26.08.2022 Bipin Maharya Bagul- -
Watchman
2. 6682/2024 26.08.2022 Ashokbhai Madhubhai -
Deshmukh-Driver
3. 6813/2024 26.08.2022 Harichand Shivaji Lumpsum
Chaudary-Watchman Compensation-
75000
Cost-5000
4. 6875/2024 26.08.2022 Harichand Vakhar Povaje- Lumpsum
Watchman Compensation-
75000
Cost-5000
5. 6897/2024 26.08.2022 Budhiyabhai Kolagha Lumpsum
Gagude-Watchman Compensation-
75000
Cost-5000
6. 7002/2024 26.08.2022 Mahendra Ganpat Jadhav- Lumpsum
Watchman Compensation-
75000
Cost-5000
7. 7025/2024 26.08.2022 Vasanbhai Sayajibhai Lumpsum
Bhoye-Watchman Compensation-
75000
Cost-5000
8. 7219/2024 26.08.2022 Mitesh Anandrao Lumpsum
Chaudhary Compensation-
65000
Cost-5000
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6250/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025
undefined
3. The petitioner appeared before the learned Labour Court
and submitted that the work was allotted on the basis of
the grant issued by the higher authorities and that, as
there was no permanent work available, their services
were terminated upon the discontinuation of the grant. It
is further contended by the petitioner before the learned
Labour Court that none of the respondents have
completed 240 days, which is a prime requirement under
Section 25B of the I.D. Act, and in the absence of the
same, it cannot be said that the services of the
respondents were retrenched. It was further contended
that, as they have been appointed for seasonal work,
they are not required to be reinstated, nor are they
entitled to any relief as claimed. The learned Labour
Court, after considering the evidence in detail, passed a
judgment and award directing the petitioner to pay the
lumpsum compensation in lieu of back wages as well as
reinstatement, vide judgment and award dated
26.08.2022, which is the subject matter of challenge
before this Court.
4. Heard the learned AGP Mr. Yuvraj Bhrahmbhatt for the
petitioner-State and the learned advocate Mr. K.I. Kazi for
the respondent-workman.
5. Learned AGP Mr. Bhrahmbhatt submits that no evidence
was adduced before the learned Labour Court to show
that any of the respondents have completed 240 days.
Learned AGP Mr. Bhrahmbhatt submits that the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6250/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025
undefined
Labour Court has committed an error in drawing an
adverse inference against the present petitioner to hold
that the respondents have worked continuously and,
therefore, they are entitled to the relief as claimed.
Learned AGP Mr. Bhrahmbhatt further submits that the
grant allotted by the higher authorities was discontinued
and, as the nature of the work is seasonal, the
respondents are not entitled to the relief as claimed.
Learned AGP Mr. Bhrahmbhatt submits that, in the
absence of any post available, the award passed by the
learned Labour Court directing the payment of lumpsum
compensation in lieu of reinstatement is erroneous, and
therefore, the same is required to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.K.I.Kazi for the
respondents has submitted that the tarij patrak, which
was produced below Exhibit 15 by the respondents,
suggests that the respondents have worked. However, to
establish that the respondents did not complete 240
days, no present muster roll was produced before the
Court. Learned advocate Mr. K.I. Kazi submits that the
respondents have discharged their duties by declaring on
affidavit that the respondents have worked continuously
for 240 days, and in the absence of any attendance
register, salary certificate, and other documents, which
are in possession of the petitioner, the burden lies on the
petitioner to show that the respondents did not complete
continuous service.
7. Learned advocate Mr.K.I.Kazi submits that after
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6250/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025
undefined
considering the evidence in detail, the award was passed
by the learned Labour Court, and therefore, no
interference is required, and the petitions deserve to be
dismissed.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the respective parties and perusing the
record, it transpires that the respondents have worked
for more than six to seven years with the petitioner
establishment. During the cross-examination of the
witness of the petitioner, it came on record that the mark
15/1 is the copy of the rojmel, which suggests that the
respondents have worked with the petitioner
establishment. So far as the days for which the
respondents have claimed to have worked, no muster roll
was produced by the present petitioner to show that the
respondents did not complete 240 days. It is further
admitted by the witness of the petitioner that, at present,
38% to 40% of daily wagers are engaged. To prove that
the respondents have worked for 240 days, oral evidence
was adduced, and in the absence of any evidence
possessed by the respondent, no other documentary
evidence was adduced before the Court.
9. It is undisputed by the petitioner, during the cross-
examination, that the work was carried out by the
petitioner for the respondents. Though it was projected
that, upon discontinuation of the grant, the respondent-
workman was disengaged from their services, it was
admitted during the cross-examination that, at present,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6250/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025
undefined
38% to 40% daily wagers are working. The above aspect
suggests that, without following the procedure prescribed
under the Act, the services of the respondents were
terminated.
10. The learned Labour Court, relying on the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. PWD
Employees, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 417 as well as
in the case of Ranbir Singh vs. Executive Engineer,
PWD, reported in (2021) 15 SCC 815 has allowed the
Reference in favor of the respondent by granting
lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement as well
as back wages.
11. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Labour Court and,
therefore, the petitions, being devoid of any merit,
deserve to be dismissed.
12. Resultantly, these petitions are dismissed accordingly.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
