Gujarat High Court

Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation vs Rajendrakumar C Vasava on 19 November, 2025

Author: Bhargav D. Karia

Bench: Bhargav D. Karia

                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/LPA/1351/2017                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

                                                                                                                 undefined




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                         R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1351 of 2017
                                                             In
                                         R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 976 of 2010


                        FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
                        and
                        HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
                        ==========================================================

                                     Approved for Reporting                    Yes           No

                        ==========================================================
                                               BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
                                                            Versus
                                                   RAJENDRAKUMAR C VASAVA
                        ==========================================================
                        Appearance:
                        MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                        MS BHAVIKA H KOTECHA(2942) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                        ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
                                and
                                HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA

                                                           Date : 19/11/2025
                                                           ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. H.S.Munshaw

for the appellant and learned advocate

Ms. Bhavika Kotecha for the respondent.

2. By this appeal under clause 15 of the

Letters Patent Act, the appellant-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1351/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

original petitioner has challenged the

Judgement and Order dated 18.11.2016

passed by the learned Single Judge in

Special Civil Application No. 976 of

2010.

3. Brief facts of the case are that:

3.1 The respondent-workman was

appointed as Keyman as per the order of

appointment dated 15.10.1997 after

following the due process and his

probation period was fixed for one year

as per the terms and conditions stated

in the order of appointment.

3.2 The appellant thereafter, on

completion of one year, passed a common

order dated 14.10.1998 for 10 similarly

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1351/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

situated employees including the

respondent-workman extending the period

of probation upto 31.10.1999.

3.3 Service of the respondent was

terminated by order dated 30.10.1999

similarly situated employees was made

permanent by order dated 11.11.1999.

3.4 Being aggrieved, the respondent

preferred Reference [LCB] No. 81/2000

in the Labour Court at Bhavnagar for

reinstatement with backwages and

continuity of service.

3.5 The Labour Court by the

Judgement and Award dated 07.11.2009

partly allowed the reference by

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1351/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

directing the appellant to reinstate

the respondent-workman with continuity

of service and 20% back wages.

3.6 Being aggrieved, the appellant

preferred Special Civil Application No.

976/2010. The learned Single Judge by

the impugned Judgement and Award partly

allowed the Special Civil Application by

upholding the Judgement and Award of the

Labour Court so far as direction to

reinstate the respondent-workman was

concerned. However, the order directing

and granting continuity of service and

order directing 20% of backwages was set

aside.

Being aggrieved, the appellant-

original petitioner Bhavnagar Municipal

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1351/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

Corporation has preferred this Appeal

which is admitted by order dated

16.04.2018.

4. Learned advocate Mr. H.S.Munshaw for

the appellant-original petitioner

submitted that by administrative order,

the probation period of 10 persons was

extended for one year and as the work

of the respondent-workman was not found

satisfactory, his service was

terminated without conducting any

inquiry as he was on probation and

therefore, there is no violation of the

provisions of section 25F, 25G and 25H

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

['I.D.Act' for short]. It was further

submitted that the respondent-workman

at the best can be given lump-sum

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1351/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

compensation as learned Single Judge

has failed to appreciate that by

administrative order, the appellant-

Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation has

treated all the 10 similarly situated

persons for extension of probation

period and even after completion of

extended one year, the service of

respondent-workman was not found

satisfactory and therefore except

respondent, the service of nine other

similarly situated employees was

regularized and were appointed on

permanent basis whereas, the

respondent-workman who was on probation

during the extended period of

probation, his service was terminated

by order dated 30.10.1999 and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1351/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

therefore, there is no violation of any

of the provision of the I.D.Act.

4.1 With regard to reasons assigned

by the learned Single Judge for

confirming the order of reinstatement,

learned advocate Mr. Munshaw submitted

that the appellant-Corporation has by

the order dated 14.10.1998 extended the

probation of all the 10 employees for

one year as their work was not

satisfactory so as to give further

chance to all the 10 workmen to prove

their efficiency and accordingly, out

of 10 workmen, 09 workmen have been

found suitable and efficient and

therefore, they were appointed on

regular basis by order dated

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1351/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

11.11.1999. So far as the respondent-

workman was concerned, his services

were not found regular and therefore,

his service was terminated.

4.2 It was further submitted that

both the Labour Court and learned

Single Judge has failed to take into

consideration that the appellant-

Corporation has extended the period of

probation of all the 10 workmen and the

respondent-workman was not singled out

and as such, no interference could have

been made in the termination of the

respondent-workman, by the Labour Court

and ought not to have been confirmed by

the learned Single Judge.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1351/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

4.3 It was further pointed out that

the learned Single Judge has considered

that the respondent-workman was not

entitled to continuity of service and

20% back-wages as awarded by the Labour

Court which goes to show that the

respondent-workman was on probation

during the extended period and only

because there is no rules and

regulation for extension of the

probation period, it cannot be said

that the appellant-Corporation could

not have extended the period of

probation.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms.

Bhavika Kotecha referred to and relied

upon the reasons assigned by the

learned Single Judge for upholding the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1351/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

order of the Labour Court regarding the

reinstatement of the respondent

workman.

5.1 As it is emerging from the

record that the respondent-workman was

appointed by regular selection process

by order dated 15.10.1997 along with 03

other persons wherein, the appointment

was made in pay scale of 800-15-1010-

EB-20-1150 having basic pay of Rs.

800/- with a period of probation on the

terms and conditions mentioned in

appointment letter. On perusal of the

appointment letter dated 15.10.1997,

there is no term or condition which

stipulates that the period of probation

can be extended for further period of

one year.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1351/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

6. Thus, the learned Single Judge has

rightly come to the conclusion that the

appellant-Corporation could not have

extended the probation period for

further period of one year on

completion of probation on 31.10.1998.

7. In that view of the matter, the

following reasons assigned by the

learned Single Judge are in accordance

with law and no interference can be

called for while in the impugned order

of directing the appellant-Corporation

to reinstate the respondent-workman

considering the period of probation as

per the appointment letter for one year

only which could not have been extended

in absence any rule or regulation:

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1351/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

"10. Thus, it has emerged that neither there is any term in the appointment order nor there is any provision in the Regulations or under service conditions which authorizes the corporation to extend the period of probation beyond one year or beyond the period mentioned in the appointment order.

11. The Court also considered the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner's appointment and condition of probation was determined and prescribed by virtue of administrative decision and administrative order.

11.1 For that purpose, the Court examined the appointment order and on examination, it is found that the appointment order does not prescribe any clause / condition with stipulation that the corporation reserves right to extend period of probation beyond one year.

11.2 The appointment order also does not contain any stipulation that the period of probation can be extended beyond the period mentioned in the appointment order, i.e. beyond one year in the event, performance is found unsatisfactory. In fact, it has emerged from the submission by

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1351/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

learned counsel for the corporation that actually, there is no provision in the Regulation which confer power to engage an employee, on probation basis. Thus, it is also not possible to examine present case on the premise that power to appoint an employee on probation would include power to extend period of probation unless barred by any provision.

11.3 There is no material on record to establish that during the period of one year, the claimant was ever informed that his performance is found unsatisfactory.

11.4 Even in the order dated 14.10.1998 whereby the period of probation was extended, such reason is not mentioned.

12. It is quite understandable that so as to ensure that the order extending period of probation is not treated as stigmatic order, the corporation may not have mentioned in the termination order that performance is not found satisfactory. However, there has to be some independent material to support such claim or assertion or allegation of the corporation.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1351/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

12.1 However, in present case, such material was not placed before the learned Labour Court and it is not placed on record of this petition as well. Under the circumstances, there is nothing on record to support the claim that the respondent's performance was not satisfactory during initial period of probation or even during the extended period of probation.

12.2 Even if the said aspect i.e. lack of material to establish that the claimant's performance was unsatisfactory is not taken into account, then also, absence of provision which would confer power to the competent authority to extend period of probation, hits the corporation's action against the respondent.

13. As mentioned above, the corporation has failed to point out any provision from the Regulations which confers power to the competent authority to extend period of probation beyond one year and/or beyond the period mentioned in the appointment order.

14. In absence of any provision in contract of employment i.e. the appointment order and/or in the service Regulations which prescribe

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1351/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

a condition or a stipulation that the corporation may extend period of probation for any reason or without assigning any reason and/or when the service Regulations/conditions of the corporation do not confer such authority then such power can neither be exercised by nor can be inferred in favour of the corporation.

15. In view of the fact that there is no clause / provision under the appointment order authorizing the corporation to extend period of probation and when corporation has failed to show any provision under the applicable rules and regulations which confers such authority on the corporation, the probation period shall be deemed to have come to end upon expiry of period of one year from the date when the respondent resumed duty.

16. Under the circumstances, on the date when the initial period of probation expired and thereafter when he continued in the service, the respondent cannot be termed as "probationer". Consequently, when the service of the claimant was terminated, i.e. after one more year, the claimant could not have been considered "probationer".

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1351/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

17. Above discussed aspects bring out that after completion of period of probation, the claimant had worked for 12 months with the corporation. It is not the case of the corporation that during the said subsequent period, the claimant had not worked for 240 days.

17.1 Under the circumstances, the termination of service of the claimant after expiry of probation period would fall within purview of Section 2(oo) which takes in its fold "termination for any reason".

18. Foregoing discussion has brought out that the period of probation for the claimant came to an end in October 1998 whereas the claimant's service was terminated one year thereafter, i.e. in 1999.

18.1 During the period from October 1998, the claimant was not on probation and cannot be considered probationer for the period beyond October 1998 and that therefore, the provision under Section 2(oo) and consequently provision under Section 25F would be attracted.

18.2 In this context, it is also relevant to note that about 10 days after the claimant's service was

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1351/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

terminated, the corporation conferred status of permanent workman to other 9 workmen who were working with the claimant.

18.3 When the said material and details are taken into account, it is not possible to hold that the conclusion by the learned Labour Court that the claimant's service was termination in contravention of statutory provision is incorrect or unjustified. The said conclusion by the learned Labour Court cannot be faulted.

19. When it is found that the termination of claimant's service was illegal, the question of appropriate relief would arise.

20. After considering the said issue, the learned Labour Court directed the corporation to reinstate the claimant with 20% backwages and continuity of service.

21. The foregoing discussion has brought out that after expiry of period of probation, the claimant had worked only for one year when his service came to be terminated."

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1351/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

8. In view of the above reasons assigned

by the learned Single Judge for

directing the appellant-Corporation to

reinstate the respondent-workman, the

order of learned Single Judge cannot be

interfered with as there is no document

placed on record on behalf of the

appellant-Corporation in support of

their exercise of administrative power