Gujarat High Court
Prabhatsinh Jesingbhai Khant vs District Development Officer on 3 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5579/2020 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5579 of 2020
==========================================================
PRABHATSINH JESINGBHAI KHANT & ANR.
Versus
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 03/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed for the following
prayers:
"7(A)(i) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ
of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/
r any other appropriate writ, order or direction to
(i) hold and declare that action on part of the respondents
in not implementing the award dated 02.04.2019 passed by
Labour Court, Dahod in Refernce (L.C.D.), demand No.09 of
2008 as illegal, unjust and may be pleased to direct the
respondents to immediately implement the said award;
(ii) direct the respondents to immediately pay all
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5579/2020 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
consequential benefits and arrears emanating from the
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 upon petitioners'
completing 10 years of service by placing them in pay-scale
and by granting them all consequential benefits from time-
to-time along with full arrears;
(iii) direct the respondents to pay the arrears payable to the
petitioners along with interest at the rate of 12% from
02.04.2019 till its actual payment.
(iv) direct the respondent No.3 to initiate prosecution as
provided under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 against respondent Nos.1 and 2 for non-implementing
the award;
(B) xxxx"
2. At the outset, learned advocate for the petitioner
has submitted that the issue involved in this petition is
broadly covered in the judgment dated 17.9.2021 passed in
Letters Patent Appeal No.734 of 2021 in Civil Application
No.1 of 2020 and this petition may be disposed of
accordingly.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw for the respondents
has, after perusing the judgment referred to above, has
conceded to the fact that the issue is covered in the said
Letters Patent Appeal and submitted that this Court may
pass appropriate order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5579/2020 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
4. Relevant portion of the judgment passed in Letters
Patent Appeal No.734 of 2021 i.e. paragraphs 4 to 6 read as
under:
"4. Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an
error that the respondent workman was appointed in the
organization irregularly without following the prescribed
procedure, purely on temporary and adhoc basis, and
therefore, the respondent workman is not entitled to the
benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It was
also contended by Mr. Munshaw that granting benefits of
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the respondent
workman would amount to granting the benefit of
regularization to a person, who is appointed by way of
backdoor entry. It was also contended by Mr. Munshaw that
granting such benefit in favour of respondent workman
would also result into financial burden on the public
exchequer, and therefore also, the judgment of the learned
Single Judge deserves to be quashed.
5 As against the above, Mr. Dipak Dave, learned counsel for
the respondent workman submitted that the law in respect
of extending benefits of Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988 is well settled by now. There are catena of
judgments governing the field, which can be seen and from
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5579/2020 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
which it can be clearly seen that the respondent workman
cannot be said to be a person not entitled to such benefits
and similarly situated persons are already enjoying the
benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. He
further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court vide
order dated 21.04.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal
No.837 of 2015 while confirming the order of the learned
Single Judge has extended the benefits of Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 in respect of similarly situated
persons. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the respondent
workman further submitted that Letters Patent Appeal in
respect of Special Civil Application No.13798 of 2018
challenging the impugned judgment, came to be rejected at
the stage of condonation of delay itself would suggest that
the present appeal is preferred only in respect of denial of
benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 for a
period of 1995 to 2005. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the
respondent workman further submitted that the grounds
canvassed by Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel for the
appellant in respect of his contentions cannot be said to be
the grounds to interfere with the award of the Labour
Court, which was confirmed by the learned Single Judge
and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and on
perusal of the judgment dated 20.06.2019 passed by the
learned Single Judge as well as the award dated 15.01.2018
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5579/2020 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
of the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (Demand) No.33
of 1999 it is undisputed fact that the respondent workman
was serving the present appellant from 16.07.1985 and at no
point of time either before the Labour Court or before the
learned Single Judge, the length of service of the respondent
workman was questioned. Even the Labour Court has
observed that the present appellant admitted before the
Labour court that the respondent workman was serving
under the present appellant from 16.07.1985. It was also not
in dispute that the respondent workman worked for more
than 240 days in each year. The only ground to deny the
benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the
respondent workman was that vide subsequent circular dated
30.03.1995, the benefits of Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988 were confined only to the daily wagers of Roads
and Buildings Department, which according to us is no
ground to deny benefit of Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988 to the respondent workman as after the aforesaid
circular dated 30.03.1995 much water has been flown in all
these years. The law with regard to Government Resolution
dated 17.10.1988 is no more res integra and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and this Court have in catena of decisions
reiterated the same. Having noticed that no other material
was ever produced before the Labour Court or before the
learned Single Judge which may compel us to take a
contrary view, we are not in a position to disagree with the
view taken by the learned Single Judge. We find that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5579/2020 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the
material available on record and after examining the
impugned award dated 15.01.2018 has arrived at a just and
proper conclusion that the respondent workman is entitled
and eligible to consequential benefits and arrears as per the
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. We are in complete
agreement with the view taken by the learned Single
Judge."
6. In view of the above, as it is fairly stated by
learned advocates for the parties that the issue involved in
this petition is covered by the judgment referred to above,
this petition is allowed in terms of prayers nos.(i), (ii), (iv)
and (v).
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
