Gujarat High Court
Veraval Patan Joint Municipality vs Sanjay Arjanbhai Katariya on 30 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/171/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 171 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
VERAVAL PATAN JOINT MUNICIPALITY
Versus
SANJAY ARJANBHAI KATARIYA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 30/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition was heard on 27.01.2025 and thereafter
kept for dictation of judgment.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court,
Junagadh in Recovery Application No.35 of 2023 filed under
section 33(C)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whereby the
petitioner - Municipality was directed to pay the amount of
Rs.8,49,433/- within a period of 30 days and in default same shall
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/171/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
be paid at the rate of 7% interest. Learned Labour Court has also
awarded cost of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent - workman.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent along with
14 other employees has filed the reference being I.T. No.225 of
2003 before the learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot claiming the
regularization in the service which was allowed vide order dated
21.08.2015 directing the Municipality to regularize the service on
the post depicted against their name from the date of
completion of 240 days and to fix their pay scale accordingly. It is
observed that yearly increment would be excluded and directed
to pay the actual benefits flowing from the date of its
implementation and the interregnum period was to be
considered as notional. Petitioner - Municipality has challenged
the above order by filling the petition before this Court being
Special Civil Application No.20968 of 2015, which was rejected
vide order dated 22.11.2016. The application for Review/Recall
came to be filed being Misc. Civil Application No.1 of 2018, which
was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 14.06.2019,
thereafter Municipality has regularized the service of the
respondent - Workman in compliance of the award passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/171/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
learned Labour Industrial Tribunal dated 21.08.2015 and benefits
flowing from the award came to be paid to the respondent -
workmen on 17.09.2019.
3.1 The respondent - workman has filed Recovery Application
No.35 of 2023 under Section 33(C)(2) before learned Labour
Court, Junagadh alleging that petitioner - Municipality has not
complied with the award dated 21.08.2015 in its true spirit and
pay fixation was not made from 06.11.1995, therefore, claim was
made to pay the difference amount. After fixing the pay scale
from 06.11.1995, petitioner - Municipality appeared and filed the
reply and learned Labour Court, after considering the arguments
and the evidence adduced by both the parties, has allowed the
application filed under Section 33 (C)(2) directing for pay fixation
on completion of 240 days and to pay the difference amount to
the employees who are named in the schedule annexed with the
demand, which is subject matter of the challenge before this
Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Patel with learned advocate
Mr. Deepak Sanchela for the petitioner - Municipality.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/171/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Sanchela for the petitioner submits
that no evidence was adduced to show that the respondent -
employee has completed 240 days prior to the year 2009 and
therefore, calculation prepared by the petitioner, is just and
proper. Without considering the same and by ignoring the
calculation, in absence of any contrary evidence, learned Labour
Court has passed an order allowing the application filed by the
respondent under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act. Learned advocate
Mr. Sanchela submits that learned Labour Court has committed
error in shifting the onus on the petitioner - Municipality to prove
that the respondent has completed 240 days prior to 2009 and in
absence of any evidence, the application came to be allowed.
Learned advocate Mr. Sanchela submits that without assigning
cogent reasons, the award was passed in favour of the
respondent and therefore, same is required to be set aside by
allowing the petition filed by the petitioner.
5. Having heard the learned advocate Mr. Sanchela for the
petitioner and considering the reasons assigned by the learned
Labour Court in the impugned order, it emerges from the record
that claim of the regularization made by the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/171/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
employee, was allowed by award dated 21.08.2015 and the
direction was issued upon the petitioner - Municipality to
regularize the service of the employees who are named in the
schedule annexed with the statement of claim from the date of
completion of 240 days and the fixation of the pay scale shall be
done accordingly. It is observed that the respondent would not
be entitled for the yearly increment and the benefit for the
interregnum period shall be paid notional income. The award
passed by the reference came to be confirmed by this Court in
Special Civil Application No.20968 of 2015 and thereafter, the
contempt petition came to be filed by the respondent - employee
being Misc. Civil Application No.3294 of 2017, which was
disposed of by this Court.
5.1 On being implemented the award by the petitioner -
Municipality, the Municipality has made fixation of wages from
01.01.1990 instead of completion of 240 date in service,
therefore, claim was made that pay fixation may be made from
06.09.1995. As per award passed by the Leonard Labour Court
dated 21.08.2015, it was also claimed that after fixing the pay
scale from above date, the difference amount be also paid to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/171/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
respondent - employee and the calculation was annexed with the
application filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act by the
respondent - employee.
5.2 The contention of the respondent is that the award was
implemented and pay fixation was done on completion of 240
days from 01.01.2009. As per the statement produced by the
petitioner, the respondent has completed 240 days and by giving
effect of notional, the arrears were paid from 01.01.2009 to 2015
which was accepted by the respondent. The witness of the
petitioner - Nagarpalika, who was examined below exhibit - 21
before the learned Labour Court has admitted that the notional
benefits were calculated from 01.01.2009 and prior to 01.01.2009
was not calculated by giving the effect of the notional to the
respondent - employee. No calculation of the days were
produced by the petitioner - Municipality to show that the 240
days were completed only on 01.01.2009 and therefore, the
effect was given of the award from 01.01.2009. It is admitted by
the witness that the calculation sheet which was produced by the
respondent - employee, was not rebutted by producing the
calculation sheet showing that actual amount which is required
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/171/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
to be paid is not as stated by the respondent but as stated in the
calculation sheet, petitioner has projected before the learned
Court that as the 240 days is completed on 01.09.2009,
therefore, the benefits were given from that date without
producing any contemporary evidence, as the award passed by
directing to regularize the service of the respondent is attained
the finality, learned Labour Court has directed to give the effect
of the award from 06.11.1995 instead of 01.01.2009, this Court is
of the view that in absence of any contrary evidence produced by
the petitioner to show that the completion of 240 days was done
from the 01.09.2009 not prior to that, learned Labour Court is
justified in allowing the application filed under Section 33(C)(2)
by directing the petitioner - employer to pay the amount of
difference of salary of Rs.8,49,433/-.
6. In that view, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned
order is just and proper and therefore, no interference is
required and the petition is required to be dismissed.
7. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
Vikramsinh Amarsinh
