Gujarat High Court
Dakor Municipality Through Its Chief ... vs Sunilkumar Ramanbhai Parmar on 9 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16770/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16770 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DAKOR MUNICIPALITY THROUGH ITS CHIEF OFFICER
Versus
SUNILKUMAR RAMANBHAI PARMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA A ASTHAVADI(12915) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 09/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging award passed by learned Labour
Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No.47 of 2014 dated
20.06.2024, whereby the petitioner was directed to reinstate the
respondent without back wages.
2. The facts needs to be discussed for disposal of the case as
under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16770/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
2.1 The respondent was serving with the petitioner -
Municipality since year 2002 on the post of wireman on daily
wages bases. As per the claim made before learned Labour Court,
his service was disengaged from 22.07.2013 by the petitioner-
Municipality and therefore, reference was filed before learned
Labour Court being Reference (LCN) No.47 of 2014 on
04.07.2014, as despite opportunities were given, the petitioner -
Municipality failed to contest before the learned Labour Court,
reference was awarded in favour of the respondent on
07.09.2016. Against ex-parte award, the application under Rule
26A of the Gujarat Industrial Dispute came to be filed for
restoration of the Reference being Application No.17 of 2017
which came to be rejected by learned Reference Court.
Thereafter, the recovery application came to be filed for the
period of 19.11.2016 to 30.06.2017 claiming the amount of
Rs.18,500/- and for the period of 01.07.2017 to 28.02.2019
claiming the amount of Rs.80,000/- which was ordered in favour
of the respondent and the amount was paid accordingly.
Meanwhile, the petition came to be filed before this Court being
Special Civil Application No.2858 of 2021 challenging the ex-
parte award as well as order of rejecting the restoration
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16770/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
application which was allowed by this Court by directing the
learned Reference Court to restore the reference to its original
file and the petitioner was directed to adduce the evidence
within a period of 4 weeks and learned Reference Court was
directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of 6 weeks
from the date of the order. Thereafter, the reference was
restored to its original file and it was heard on merits, thereafter,
learned Reference Court has awarded the reference in favour of
the respondent by directing the present petitioner to reinstate
the respondent without back wages which is subject of matter
consideration before this Court
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Premal R. Joshi for the
petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Aditya A. Asthavadi for the
respondent.
3.1. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi submits that the learned
Reference Court committed error in allowing the reference on
two counts, one to establish that respondent has completed the
continuous service, the muster roll was signed by the father of
the respondent who was also serving as a wireman with the
petitioner - Municipality, though the respondent remained
absent for certain dates, however, learned Reference Court has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16770/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
believed case of the respondent that he has completed period of
240 days as per Section 25(E) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Learned advocate Mr. Joshi further submits that the second
ground on which the award is challenged that no sanctioned post
is available as one post which is sanctioned by the Higher
Authority, is filled up with the regular employee therefore, also
the award of the reinstatement cannot be implemented. Learned
advocate Mr. Joshi submits that by not considering the above
aspect, learned labour court has committed error and therefore,
the impugned award deserves to be set aside and petition is
required to be allowed.
4. As against the same, learned advocate Mr. Asthavadi
submits that no evidence was adduced despite the sufficient
opportunity was given by the learned Labour Court to establish
that the Muster Roll was signed by the father and not by the
respondent. Learned advocate Mr. Asthavadi submits that there
was no question of sanctioned post as directions were issued to
reinstate the respondent-workman to his original post i.e. daily
wager.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Asthavadi has drawn the attention of
this Court with regard to the pleadings/ averments made in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16770/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
petition and submitted that as per his own admission in the
memo of the petition, the sanctioned post has not been filled up
by appointing any regular employee and the same is vacant as on
date. Learned advocate Mr. Asthavadi submits that considering
the above, the reference was awarded in favour of the
respondent, therefore, no interference is required and petition
deserves to be dismissed.
5. Having considered the arguments made by learned
advocates for respective parties and considering the reasons
assigned by learned Labour Court, it transpires from the record
that initially reference which was awarded ex-parte in favour of
the respondent which was restored by this Court with direction
to adduce the evidence within a period of 4 weeks and to
conclude the proceedings within a period of 6 weeks. The
reasons further reflect that the sufficient opportunities were
given to the petitioner - employer to adduce the evidence.
However, only bare pleadings were raised that Muster Roll was
signed by the father and not by the respondent. This Court is of
the view that pleadings cannot be replaced by evidence and as
petitioner fails to cross-examine the workman to establish that
the respondent has not completed 240 days and therefore, he is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16770/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
not entitled for the relief which was granted. So far as the
ground with regard to the sanctioned vacant post is concerned,
from the averment as pointed out by the learned advocate Mr.
Asthavadi for the respondent, it is not the case that the post is
not available and even if post is not available then also the
directions were issued to reinstate the respondent to his original
post i.e. the daily wager and therefore, in the opinion of this
Court, no contention with regard to the sanctioned post would
not help to the petitioner to establish that impugned award
deserves to be set aside.
6. Considering the overall circumstances, this Court is of the
view that petition being devoid of merits, as no error has been
committed by the learned Labour Court in awarding the
reference in favour of the respondent, same deserves to be
dismissed.
7. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
Vikramsinh Amarsinh
