Ramsingbhai Shamjibhai Padewadia vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 4959 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Ramsingbhai Shamjibhai Padewadia vs State Of Gujarat on 20 June, 2025

Author: Nikhil S. Kariel

Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel

                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/6505/2024                                  ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025

                                                                                                             undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6505 of 2024

                      ==========================================================
                                      RAMSINGBHAI SHAMJIBHAI PADEWADIA & ANR.
                                                      Versus
                                             STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR NILESH M SHAH(780) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
                      MS NIRALI SARDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
                      ==========================================================

                           CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                                                          Date : 20/06/2025

                                                            ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Nilesh M. Shah for the petitioners and

learned AGP Ms. Nirali Sarda for the respondent-State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following prayers :

"(17) The Petitioners therefore pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:-

(A) to issue writ of certiorari and/or any other writ or writs or orders or directions.

(B) to quash and/or set aside Common Order dt. 06-11-16 Ann-

B passed by the Respondent No.4 to the extent of not granting benefit of G.R. dt. 17-10-88 Ann-C with effect from 01-01-89 and to direct the Respondents to give the benefit of pay scale (including revised pay scale) from 01-01-89 and all retirement benefits including Pension, Gratuity and Leave Encashment as per Resolution dt. 17-10-88, Ann-C.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6505/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

(BB) to quash and/or set aside Reply dt. 06-04-5024, Ann-G given by the Respondent No.4.

(C) to direct the Respondents to give the notional benefit of Resolution dt. 17-10-88, Ann-C (notional fixation including revised pay scale from time to time) to the Petitioners with effect from 01-01-89 to 28-10-10 and further be pleased to direct the Respondents to give difference of salary (including fixation of revised pay scale from time to time) from 29-10-10 to 16-09-2014 and pay slip for the said period from 06-05-13 to 16-09-14.

(D) to direct the Respondents to grant retirement benefits like Pension of 31 years service from 17-09-14 till its implementation, Gratuity of 31 years and Leave encashment of 300 days to the Petitioners with 9% interest from the date of filing of this petition till its actual implementation.

(E) to grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit in the interest of justice.

(F) to allow this petition with costs."

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had been

engaged as daily wage labourers by the respondent No. 4 with effect from

01.01.1984 and whereas services of the petitioners and other similarly

situated co-employees were terminated on 08.03.1992, which had

resulted in the said employees approaching the learned Labour Court by

raising dispute vide Reference (LCS) No. 159 of 1992 and whereas the

learned Labour Court, Surendranagar, had partly allowed the said

reference vide an award dated 17.05.2000, directing the respondent No.4

to reinstate the petitioners and the other similarly situated employees

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6505/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

without any backwages. The respondents had challenged the said decision

before this Court by preferred Special Civil Application Nos. 12148 of

2000 to 12165/2000 and whereas a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court had interfered with the award passed by the learned Labour Court

and vide judgment dated 04.07.2005, the matter had been remanded back

to the learned Labour Court. It appears that the learned Labour Court had

again passed a fresh order dated 29.06.2006, whereby the employees

were directed to be reinstated with backwages as per the last drawn

salary, till reinstatement. The said award having been challenged before

this Court, had not been interfered with. It appears that the petitioners had

thereafter been reinstated on 03.07.2006 on piece rate basis and whereas

since their application to the Assistant Labour Commissioner,

Surendranagar as regards the non-compliance of the order of the learned

Labour Court did not result in any fruitful action, the petitioners and co-

employees had approached this Court by preferring Special Civil

Application No. 17573/2000 and whereas the learned Co-ordinate Bench

of this Court, had issued certain directions which had resulted in the

petitioners and other co-employees being reinstated on 06.05.2013. The

petitioners had thereafter retired from service on 16.09.2014.

4. It appears that the petitioners and other co-employees had

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6505/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

requested the respondents to grant benefits of Government Resolution

dated 17.10.1988 and later Government Resolutions, upon completion of

20 years of service and whereas vide common order dated 06.11.2016,

the respondents had denied such benefits. It would appear at this stage

that the co-employees i.e 14 co-employees, had questioned the said

communication dated 06.11.2016 before this Court by preferring writ

petition being Special Civil Application No. 1759 of 2016 and whereas a

learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide decision dated 04.12.2023

had allowed the writ petition.

5. It would appear to this Court that since the facts and the law

applicable insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, are identical to

the petitioners who had approached this Court vide Special Civil

Application No. 1759 of 2016, therefore, the said decision, has to be

followed by this Court completely.

6. Learned AGP Ms. Nirali Sarda for the respondent-State could not

point out any difference between the petitioners before this in Special

Civil Application No. 1759 of 2016 and the present petitioners.

7. Considering such a position, observations of the learned Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in order dated 04.12.2023, more particularly

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6505/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

paragraphs No. 3, 3.1, 3.2, 4, 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 6 being relevant for

the present purpose are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit.

"3. The facts inter alia are that all the petitioners were engaged as labourers in the office of the respondent Forest Department. They were assigned the work of digging pits, raising samplings, preparing hedge etc. in the nursery. The petitioners were appointed since 1982 to 1989 for such work. As their services were terminated, they had an occasion to invoke the jurisdiction of the labour court by filing Reference (LCS) No.195 of 1992 which was renumbered as No.160 of 2005. The labour court, Surendranagar passed judgment and award dated 29.6.2006 directing the employer to reinstate the workmen on their original post and to pay to them the last drawn salary till the date of reinstatement.

3.1 It is the case of the petitioners that despite judgment and award of the labour court, the respondent authorities were disinclined to reinstate the workmen and implement the award which led them to file another petition for compliance. In the meantime, the State Government also filed Special Civil Application No.30545 of 2007 challenging the order of the labour court. The said petition was dismissed by order dated 17.3.2016 and the judgment and award of the labour court was not interfered with.

3.2 As regards the claim of the petitioner for grant of benefits under Resolution dated 17.10.1988, by filing affidavit-in-reply, it was contended inter alia that unless the workman was found to have completed 240 days in a calendar year, he could not be given the benefit. It was stated that the petitioners would not be entitled to the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 because of the said reason. It was contended that the other workmen named by the petitioner who were reinstated because of the judgment and order of the labour court, whereas the present petitioners are not extended the same relief as they could not be said to have completed continuous service, therefore benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and Resolution dated 15.9.2014

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6505/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

could not be given.

4. In other words, the main contention of the respondents to deny the benefits of the Resolution is that the petitioners had not rendered continuous service within the meaning of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

5. Examining the aforesaid stand of the respondents in light of the facts and in particular judgment and award of the labour court dated 29.6.2006, it is to be noticed that the workmen were directed to be reinstated on the original post and the first party employer was required to pay salary to them till the date of reinstatement. It may be true that nothing was expressly stated about the benefit of continuity. However, it is trite principle that when the award of reinstatement is passed and the continuity of service is not expressly denied by the labour court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, the benefit of continuity shall be deemed to have been granted and that such benefit would be read into the award, provided that the continuity is not expressly denied.

5.1 The decisions of this court in Kasambhai M. Ajmeri Vs. District Development Officer & Ors. being Special Civil Application No. 7588 of 2004 decided on 12.11.2014 as also in Paresh Chelshankar Vyas vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. being Special Civil Application No. 7529 of 2018 decided as per judgment and order dated 12.7.2019 and other decisions are on the same lines based on similar set of facts.

5.2 When the impugned decision passed by the Range Forest Officer is seen, what is stated to deny the benefits of Resolution is that the benefits of Resolution could be extended to those employees who had rendered continuous services, however, the petitioners could not be said to have rendered the services continuously, they are not entitled to the benefits. The aforesaid stand cannot be sustained in eye of law. As per the judgment and award of the labour court granting reinstatement, continuity benefit is to be deemed for the petitioners. The said judgment and award stands confirmed as the challenge thereto by the State authorities

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6505/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

failed when the Special Civil Application No.30545 of 2007 was dismissed.

5.3 Once the continuity benefit is available to the petitioners under the judgment and award of the labour court, confirmed by this court, the benefits can be said to have been crystallized finally. It is not open to the respondent authorities to question the same on the spacious ground that there was requirement to examine whether the petitioners concerned had completed 240 days in the year, when the continuity benefit has accrued for the petitioners. By taking such stance, the authorities cannot indirectly call in question or reopen the judgment and award. The judgment and award of the labour court wherefrom the benefit of continuity of service has flown has to be taken to its logical end.

5.4 The services of the petitioners have to be viewed and taken to be continuous within the meaning of law. As a necessary sequetor, all the benefits available to the petitioners on the basis of continuous service and such length of service under Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and Resolution dated 15.9.2014, the petitioners could be said to have been fulfilling the criteria prescribed in the said Resolution to get the benefits thereunder.

6. In view of the forgoing reasons and discussion, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. The decision reflected in communication dated 16.11.2016 as well as the communication itself which denies the benefit of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and Resolution dated 15.9.2014 to the petitioners on the ground that the benefits were not available as the continuous services was not rendered, is hereby set aside. The petitioners have to be held earned the benefit of continuity. They are entitled to the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and Resolution dated 15.9.2014. Such benefits shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order."

8. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners are identically situated to the petitioners of the above writ petition, the benefits as had been

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6505/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025

undefined

granted in case of the co-employees, should also be made available to the petitioners. Hence, the following directions.

(i) The Communication dated 16.11.2016 is hereby quashed and set aside.

(ii) The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners, while calculating the services of the petitioners as continuous from the date of entry in service.

(iii) All benefits as it may available to the petitioners under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 read with Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014 shall be made available to the petitioners, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to approach this Court by filing a fresh application in case of difficulty.

9. With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of as allowed.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) BDSONGARA