Gujarat High Court
Divisional Controller, S T Corporation vs Sukhdevsinh Temubha Rana on 25 November, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/640/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 640 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16982 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 640 of 2025
==========================================================
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, S T CORPORATION
Versus
SUKHDEVSINH TEMUBHA RANA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ULLASH N GOHIL(8357) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 25/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Sejal K. Mandavia for the
appellant and learned advocate Mr.Ullash N. Gohil for the
respondent.
2. By this appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent Act,
the appellant - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has
challenged the Judgment and Order dated 10.01.2025 passed
in Special Civil Application No.16982 of 2022 with Civil
Application (For Direction) No.1 of 2023 in Special Civil
Application No.16982 of 2022.
3. The facts are not in dispute. The respondent was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/640/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
appointed on the post of badli worker pursuant to the
advertisement in the newspaper for filling up the post of
driver in the month of June, 1999. The name of the respondent
was kept in the select list/waiting list at Sr.No.273.
4. The respondent was also given the work of driver as
badli worker on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 19.04.2001 at
Palitana depot and accordingly, he has worked as driver from
19.04.2001 to 26.04.2001 and thereafter, from 29.04.2001 to
30.04.2001.
5. There was an issue with regard to the date of birth of the
respondent - workman as he had submitted the School
Leaving Certificate showing date of birth as 01.03.1969
whereas, in the driving license of the respondent, the year of
birth was shown as 1963. On the basis of such anomaly, the
name of the respondent was deleted from the waiting list by
the Order dated 11.08.2004 by the appellant. It appears that
the respondent thereafter, preferred a Civil Suit, challenging
the aforesaid order and when the Civil Court held that it has
no jurisdiction, Reference (LCB) No.31 of 2012 was preferred
before the Labour Court, Bhavnagar under Section 10(1)(c) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
6. The Labour Court, by Judgment and Award dated
29.01.2022, directed the appellant - Corporation to reinstate
the respondent with continuity of service and 10% of back
wages on the original post on the ground that the action of the
appellant - Corporation to terminate the services of the
respondent was illegal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/640/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
7. Being aggrieved, the appellant - Corporation preferred
Special Civil Application before this Court, which was partly
allowed by modifying the Judgment and Award of the Labour
Court by directing the appellant - Corporation to reinstate the
respondent to his original post however, the order of payment
of 10% back wages was set aside.
8. The findings and directions of the learned Single Judge
are as under:-
"8. As per the submission made by the learned
advocates, the respondent has worked from
19.01.2001 to 31.10.2001 in the place of the
employee who was not available. The reliance
which was placed by the learned advocate for the
respondent on the judgment rendered in Civil
Application No.89 of 1990 wherein, it is held that
the principle of natural justice is required to be
followed even in removing the name from the
waiting list on the alleged ground of misconduct.
This Court is of the view that as due to said
alleged misconduct, the respondent would loose
the chance of getting the service in future with
the corporation by not holding any inquiry and
passing this order of deleting the name of the
respondent from the waiting list, petitioner
corporation committed an error.
9. In view of the same, this Court did not find any
infirmity in the impugned award passed by the
learned labour court by directing to reinstate to
his original post. However, by directing the same
learned labour court has awarded 10% back
wages. This Court is of the view that as the
service of the respondent was taken as a badli
worker and in absence of the regular employee,
no back wages can be awarded to the respondent,
hence the impugned award is modified to the
above extent and the petitioner is directed to
reinstate the respondent to his original post
without any back wages."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/640/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
9. Learned advocate Ms.Sejal K. Mandavia appearing for
the appellant submitted that the respondent was never
appointed as a regular driver with the appellant - Corporation
and that he was appointed as a badli worker and his name
was kept at Sr.No.273 in the select list/waiting list of the
drivers. It was submitted that the appellant - Corporation had
made a specific request in the Special Civil Application, which
was recorded in the impugned Judgment and Order that the
appellant - Corporation is ready and willing to add the name
of the respondent in the waiting list. However, the learned
Single Judge, has in spite of holding that the name of the
respondent - workman could not have been deleted from the
waiting list, upheld the order of the Labour Court whereby,
the direction to reinstate the respondent to the original post
was made. It was submitted that there was no original post of
driver on which the respondent was working instead the
respondent was admittedly working as badli worker and his
name was continued in the waiting list when the Order dated
11.08.2004 was passed by deleting the name of the
respondent - workman.
10. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Ullash N. Gohil
appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that the prayer
of the respondent before the Labour Court was only to
continue his name in the waiting list and as he was duly
selected as per the advertisement issued in the year 1999 and,
therefore, if the respondent completes 180 days in a year
then, he may be entitled to the benefits of a regular pay-scale.
11. Considering the above submissions and without entering
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/640/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
into the merits of the matter in detail, the Judgment and
Order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified to the
extent that instead of order of reinstatement of the
respondent into his original post, the same shall be
substituted and modified to the extent to continue the name of
the respondent in the select list/waiting list of the appellant -
Corporation as badli worker.
12. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
13. In view of the above, Civil Application would not survive
and the same also stands disposed of.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
Hitesh
