Gujarat High Court
Sureshbhai Mansukhbhai Amreliya vs State Of Gujarat on 20 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1337 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
SURESHBHAI MANSUKHBHAI AMRELIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS RAKSHA S DIKSHIT(5568) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS DIXA PANDYA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 20/06/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Ms. Dixa Pandya
waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.
2. Present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the
learned Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (T) No.12 of 2021
dated 02.09.2024, whereby the reference filed by the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
petition, came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner
does not fulfill the criteria mentioned in Section 2(S) i.e.
workman under the Industrial Disputes Act.
3. It is the case of the present petitioner that the petitioner is
appointed as a Member of Gramrakshak Dal (Village Defence
Party) on 31.07.2018 and he was serving as a Member of
Gramrakshak Dal from 31.07.2018 to 14.08.2020. Thereafter
respondent No.2 has terminated the service of the petitioner
vide order dated 14.08.2020. Challenging the said order, dispute
was raised before the learned Reference Court, which was
culminated in the Reference (T) No.12 of 2021, wherein the
learned Labour Court has awarded the reference against the
present petitioner, which is the subject matter of challenge
before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Ms. Dikshit for the petitioner.
5. Learned advocate Ms. Dikshit submits that though the
petitioner has established his prima-facie case of being a
workman, the learned Labour Court has committed an error in
dismissing the reference by holding that the petitioner does not
fulfill the criteria of Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
Learned advocate Ms. Dikshit further submits that though the
petitioner was serving with the respondent continuously for two
years, without following procedure under the Industrial Disputes
Act, the reference came to be rejected. Hence, present petition
be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned
advocate Ms. Dikshit and on referring the reasons assigned by
the learned Reference Court, it emerges that the appointment of
the petitioner was made as a G.R.D., Officer in the Gramrakshak
Dal. He was appointed in the G.R.D. (Gramrakshak Dal) on
31.07.2018 and was terminated on 14.08.2020. As per the
prevailing practice and as admitted during cross-examination, it
emerges that his service was taken through a rotation system,
and once in every two to three months, his turn would come for
one month. He was paid honorarium on the basis of the number
of days served, at the rate of Rs. 230/- per day. The learned
Reference Court has referred the decision rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat V/s. Akshay
Amrutlal Thakkar reported in AIR 2006 SC 943 and has held
that the petitioner was serving on honorary basis in the Village
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
Defence Party i.e. Gramrakshak Dal. As the Gramrakshak Dal is
voluntary organization and having the control of the District
Superintendent of Police, there is no relationship master and
servant between the District Superintendent of Police and
Member of the Gramrakshak Dal. The relevant observations
made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decision are
referred hereinbelow in paragraph Nos.9 and 10.
"9. The guidelines 4 & 5 are relevant for the purpose of this
case. Guideline 5 makes it clear that only a person who
rendered services for a particular period as Taluka Home
Guards Officer is eligible for appointment as District
Commandant. The post of District Commandant is honorary
post. However, it is equivalent to the gazetted officer,
Class-I and the appointment is to be made by a Selection
Committee consisting of the designated officers. It is found
that in terms of guideline 4, an undertaking is given that
the person selected is not to be member of the political
party and shall not led by any communal institute and
political party and nor shall he involve in any political or
communal activities. As the authorities found that the
respondents were in fact acting at variance with the
undertaking given, their disengagement was felt necessary.
View taken in the impugned judgments, therefore, cannot
be maintained and the impugned judgments are set aside.
The view expressed by the Division Bench of the High Court
in special Civil Application No. 3447 of 1996 dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
23.1.1998 (Lateben Ramniklal Shah and Ors. v. State of
Gujarat and Ors.) taking the contrary view is the correct
one.
10. As rightly contended by learned Counsel for the
appellant-State, the order impugned in the writ petition
was one of disengagement because the respondents did
not act in terms of the undertaking given. As the services
rendered by the respondents were essentially honorary no
civil consequences were involved. Section 6B(1A) empowers
the Commandant to discharge any member of Home
Guards at any time if the opinion of the Commandant the
services of such member are no longer required. The
provision does necessarily refer to the discharge of a
member from the Home Guards. The respondents in the
instant case were not sought to be discharged as members
of the Home Guards. Under the Notification in question, the
discharge was from duties as District Commandant, Home
Guards."
6.1 In view of above circumstance, Court does not find any
infirmity in the impugned order, hence, present petitions deserve
to be dismissed.
7. Resultantly, present petitions are dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
Vikramsinh Amarsinh
