Gujarat High Court
Dwarka Municipality vs Himanshu V Min on 7 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16623 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
DWARKA MUNICIPALITY
Versus
HIMANSHU V MIN
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the
learned Labour Court, Jamnagar in Recovery 33(C)(2) Application
No.49 of 2018 dated 16.07.2024, whereby the petitioner was
directed to pay the amount of Rs.2,91,324/- towards the benefit
of the regularization, which was awarded by the learned
Reference Court in Reference (IT) No.104 of 2012.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the reference,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
being Reference (IT) No.104 of 2012 filed by the workman
claiming the benefit of regularization of his service, which came
to be allowed by the learned Reference Court on 28.02.2017,
directing the present petitioner - Municipality to regularize him
on Class-IV post on completion of 240 days and to pay actual
benefits from the date of award and interregnum period was
considered for notional benefits. As the award passed by the
learned Labour Court has not been implemented, therefore,
recovery application came to be filed which was ordered in
favour of the respondent - workman and the same is subject
matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dinesh Gautam for learned
advocate Mr. Deepak Sanchela and learned advocate Mr.
Rajyaguru appearing on advance copy for respondent.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Gautam submits that the recovery
Court could not have been exercised its power under
Section33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by directing the
present petitioner to pay the benefit of the regularization.
Learned advocate Mr. Gautam submits that as the claim made by
the respondent - workman has been disputed, instead of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
adjudicating the claim by filing the separate, reference the
recovery application came to be filed, which was allowed. In view
of above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Gautam has
requested to set aside the impugned order to allow the petition.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru appearing for the
workman on advance copy, has submitted that as the award
passed by the learned Reference Court has been confirmed up to
the Division Bench of this Court, no error has been committed by
the learned Labour Court in allowing the recovery application.
6. Having considered the arguments made by the learned
advocates for the parties, it emerges from the record that
reference, which was filed by the workman being Reference (IT)
No.104 of 2012 claiming the benefit of regularization on the post
of Class-IV employee on completion on 240 days, was awarded in
favour of the workman on 28.02.2017. Challenging the above
order, petition is filed before this Court being Special Civil
Application No. 3825 of 2021, wherein this Court has confirmed
the award passed by the learned Reference Court by dismissing
the petition at admission stage. Challenging the order passed by
this Court dismissing the petition, intra Court appeal came to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
filed being LPA No. 435 of 2025, wherein also Division Bench of
this Court has confirmed the order passed by the learned
Reference Court as well as order passed by learned Single Judge.
This Court is of the view that when the benefit of the
regularization, which was granted by the learned Reference
Court, was confirmed up to Division Bench of this Court and as on
date it was not carried further, no error has been committed by
learned Labour Court in directing the present petitioner to pay
the amount of Rs.2,91,324/-, the benefit which flows from the
award of the reference.
7. Resultantly present petition deserves to be dismissed.
Hence, present petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
Vikramsinh Amarsinh
