[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Maganbhai Chhaganbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 28 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8738/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8738 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
MAGANBHAI CHHAGANBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5.1,6
MR PARTH PATEL, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 28/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This Court vide its order dated 21.11.2025 admitted the
matter and heard the matter finally and put it for dictation of
judgment on 25.11.2025. However, due to paucity of time, it
was listed today.
1.1 At this juncture, learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave
appearing for the petitioners seek liberty of this Court to
tender further affidavit on behalf of the petitioner whereby,
requested this Court to take note of the respective dates of
birth of each petitioner. The tender of such additional affidavit
is not objected by learned Assistant Government Pleader
Mr.Parth Patel appearing for the respondents. Thus, in view of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8738/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
the aforesaid, further affidavit of the petitioner is taken on
record.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dipak R. Dave for the
petitioners and learned AGP Mr.Parth Patel for the State
respondents at length.
3. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 16
and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to issue writ of mandamus, or
any other writ, order or direction, directing the
communication/letter dated 29/05/2015 issued by the respondent
authorities, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for the benefits of
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is illegal, improper, arbitrary and
contrary to the evidence on record and be pleased to set aside the
same.
(B) YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to issue writ of mandamus, or
any other writ, order or direction, declaring the act of the
respondent authorities in not conferring the benefits of resolution
dated 17/10/1988 to the petitioner is illegal, improper, arbitrary and
contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and be further
pleased to direct the respondents to grant the benefits of the
resolution dated 17/10/1988.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition
YOUR LORDSHIP be further pleased to direct the respondents to
start paying the benefits the benefits of the Resolution dated
17.10.1988 in light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court.
(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further
relief as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice."
4. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Dave appearing for
the petitioners would state that issue germane in the matter is
squarely covered by the decision dated 02.02.2022 of the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Special Civil
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8738/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
Application No.15845 of 2020 (in the case of Bhagwanbhai
Motibhai Malivas Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.), confirmed by
the Division Bench vide its judgment and order dated
07.03.2023 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1737 of 2022,
whereby, similar issue concerned in this petition has been
answered by this court.
5. Since the aforesaid facts and the judgments / orders
passed by the Coordinate Bench, confirmed by the Division
Bench, are not disputed by the learned AGP appearing for the
respondents, it needs not to discuss in detail the facts, when
this Court also inclined to pass similar such judgment / order
in this matter, but only few facts require to be observed,
which are as follows:
5.1 The petitioners were appointed as daily wager with
respondent Nos.3 & 4, whose services were terminated
abruptly by respondent No.3 & 4 on 22.08.1997. The
petitioners therefore raised an Industrial Dispute, which came
to be decided by the Labour Court, Godhra in favour of the
petitioners, whereby petitioners have been ordered to be
reinstated in their respective services. From the awards
passed by the Labour Court A chart indicating the details
regarding date of joining, Reference number, date of award
and number years completed by the petitioners as per the
case of the Respondent no. 3 & 4 prior to their termination is
reproduced below.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8738/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
Number of Years
Completed by the Pe-
Peti- Name of Reference
Date of Date of titioner as per The
tioner the (L.C.G.)
Joining the Award Respondent Prior to
No. Petitioner No.
their termination in
the year 1997
Maganbhai 7 years
27.06.19
1. Chhaganbhai 610/1998 13.10.2014 (P.g. no. 40 of the pe-
Parmar tition)
Ganpatbhai 6 years
02.06.19
2. Shabhai 615/1998 07.10.2014 (P.g. no. 61 of the pe-
Nayak tition)
Ishwarbhai 8 years
01.07.19
3. Jalubhai 613/1998 10.10.2014 (P.g. no. 82 of the pe-
Nayak tition)
Ganpatbhai 5 years
01.07.19
4 Maganbhai 619/1998 08.10.2014 (P.g. no. 103 of the
Bariya petition)
Karansing
Dhirsing
Bariya
Since de-
1 year
ceased 09.07.19
5 618/1998 09.10.2014 (P.g. no. 124 of the
through 92
petition)
Vinaben
Wd/o
Karansing
Bariya
5.2 The aforesaid judgments and awards passed by the
Labour Court were not challenged by the respondents and
pursuant to the judgment and award the petitioners were
reinstated in their service.
5.3 It appears that the petitioners' previous service
rendered by them were not taken into account when
reinstated in the service, and therefore they are not granted
the benefits flowing from G.R. dated 17.10.1998.
6. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Dave pointed out
that other similar such orders passed by the Co-ordinate
Bench / Division Bench of this Court and also confirmed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, which are as follows:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8738/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
(i) Special Civil Application Nos.16526 of 2018
passed by this court in similar facts and
circumstances;
(ii) Special Civil Application No.15845 of 2020,
decided on 02.02.2022, confirmed in Letters Patent
Appeal No.1737 of 2022 vide order dated
07.03.2023;
(iii) Special Civil Application No.21659 of 2023(in
Girdharbhai Muljibhai Eradiya v State of Gujarat &
Ors.), decided on 11.07.2025, confirmed in Letters
Patent Appeal No.1205 of 2025 vide order dated
10.11.2025;
(iv) Special Civil Application Nos.20894 of 2017 &
21570 of 2017, decided on 06.03.2020, confirmed
in Letters Patent Appeal No.663 of 2020 in Special
Civil Application No.20894 of 2017 vide order dated
06.02.2024 and confirmed on 13.02.2024 in Letters
Patent Appeal No.722 of 2020 in Special Civil
Application No.21570 of 2017;
(v) Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
reported in (2002) 9 SCC 492;
(vi) Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao Vs. Kosan
Industries (P) Ltd., rendered in Civil Appeal
Nos.201-202 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C)
Nos.30469-30470 of 2015), reported in AIR 2020
SC 1776;
7. By placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments /
orders passed by this Court, confirmed up to the Division
Bench and other two decisions in the case of Gurpreet Singh
(supra) and Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao (supra), Mr. Dave
would respectfully submit that as per the settled legal position
of law, when Labour Court granted relief of reinstating the
applicants / petitioners, even if not specifically observed about
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8738/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
the continuity of service, it is deemed to have been granted,
thus, it cannot be ignored by employer when reinstated the
petitioners.
7.1 It is respectfully submitted that even though Labour
Court has not in clear terms observed in its judgment / award
that reinstatement of petitioners with continuity of service, as
per the aforesaid pronouncement of law by highest Court of
India, it requires to be considered by the respondents,
inasmuch as, when there is an award of reinstatement by the
Labour Court, such award has to be construed to be an award
granting continuity of service unless otherwise expressly
denied.
7.2 On behalf of the petitioner nos. 1 to 4 further affidavit
has been filed along with their school leaving certificates
indicating date of birth of petitioner nos. 1 to 4. As stated in
the affidavit, while petitioner nos. 1 to 3 have reached
superannuation age, petitioner no.4 is not provided any work
from March, 2021 on the auspices that respondent no. 3 and 4
have not received any grant. Petitioner no. 1 has though
reached superannuation age i.e. 60 years, he is still continued
in service. The petitioner no.5 has passed away on
03.03.20223 and his heirs are on record.
8. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Parth Patel for the
respondents, though placed reliance upon the judgment and
order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated
12.07.2016 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.492 of 2016 in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8738/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
R/ Special Civil Application No.20577 of 2015, is unable to
countenance the submissions made by the learned advocate
Mr. Dave for the petitioners. The learned AGP has placed on
record tabular chart prepared by respondent no.3, showing
number of working days of the petitioners and contended that
only in few years as mentioned in the chart the petitioners
have completed 240 days of service prior to their termination.
9. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and after going through all the aforementioned cited
judgments / orders passed by this Court and so also, by
Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear like a day that whenever there
is an award passed by the Labour Court, whereby services of
labourer concerned is ordered to be reinstated without
expressing anything about his/her continuity of service, unless
it is expressly denied by Labour Court, continuity of service is
deemed to have been granted in such award. Thus, in view of
aforesaid pronouncement of law, respondents require to
consider continuity of service of petitioners herein though not
expressed observed by Labour Court in its aforesaid award,
thereby requires to grant benefits to the petitioners /
applicants concerned.
10. It is not in dispute that case of the petitioners is so
similar and governed by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in the case of Bhagwanbhai Motibhai Malivad
(supra), which came to be confirmed by the Division Bench
while dismissing the R/Letters Patent Appeal No.1737 of 2022
on 07.03.2023, thus, there is no reason to take departure from
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8738/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
such orders / judgments which otherwise binding to this
Court.
11. Further The Division bench recently after considering
the various decision of this Court as well as the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in the decision of Girdharbhai Eradiya(Supra)
has held that once a worker is awarded reinstatement with
continuity of services, he cannot be denied the benefits
flowing from government resolution dated 17.10.1988.
12. At this stage leaned AGP Mr. Parth Patel would draw the
attention of this court on a tabular chart prepared by
respondent no.3 showing the details regarding number days
completed by the petitioners in each year and would contend
that the petitioners are not completing 240 days of services in
all the years. In view of the same he would contend that since
the petitioners are not completing 240 days of service in
requisite number of years, they are not entitled to the benefits
of G.R. dated 17.10.1988. However, the contention raised by
the by learned AGP lacks merit in as much as in light of the
decisions cited herein above once the petitioners are directed
to be reinstated by the Labour court they are required to be
treated in the continuous service right from the date of their
illegal termination till the date of their actual reinstatement.
Therefore, from the date of their illegal termination till the
date of their actual reinstatement petitioners would be
deemed to have completed 240 days of services in those
years.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8738/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
13. In case of Ratilal Balwantsinh Baria v. State of
Gujarat & ors. (Special Civil Application No. 15601 of 2020),
this court vide oral judgment dated 27.01.2022 in has
specifically held that while conferring benefits of GR dated
17.10.1988 and computing period of service of an employee,
Sundays and holidays are required to be added. following
observations in paragraph 6 are pertinent to be noted :
"6. Considering the decision rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.
1495 of 1997 decided on 06.08.1998, the Division Bench of this
Court held as under:
"This appeal is directed against judgment dated November
10, 1997 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application no. 7539/97 by which prayer claimed by the
appellant to direct the respondents to pay pension to him has
been rejected. The appellant worked as a daily wager under
the respondent no.1 from September 24 to October 13, 1989.
He retired from service on October 13, 1989. According to
him, he was entitled to pension and, therefore, approached
the Surat District Dalit Seva Sangh for taking-up his cause.
The President of the Sangh wrote a letter dated November 8,
1994 to respondent no.3 requesting him to do needful in the
matte of grant of pension to the appellant. The Sangh
received a letter dated December 22, 1995 from respondent
no.1 to the effect that the appellant was not entitled to
pension in view of the Government resolution dated October
17, 1988. From the letter dated January 7, 1997, which was
addressed by respondent no.1 to the President of Sangh, it is
evident that the benefit of pension was not granted to the
appellant, as according to the respondents, the apppellant
had put in 8 years of continuous service, wherein he had
worked for more than 240 days in every year and as the
appellant had not put in 10 years of continuous service,
wherein he had worked for more than 240 days, the appellant
was not entitled to pension benefit. The letter dated January
7, 1997 is produced by the appellant at Annexure-D. In his
career, the appellant had worked for more than 240 days in
14 years and, therefore, according to him he was entitled to
pension. Under the circumstances, the appellant instituted
Special Civil Application no. 7539/97 and prayed to direct the
respondents to pay pension to him. An affidavit-in-reply was
filed on behalf of the respondents by Deputy Executive
Engineer, Surat Canal Division No.IV, Kholwod, Surat
controverting the averments made in the petition. In the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8738/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
reply affidavit, it was claimed that there were breaks in
service of the appellant and as he had not worked for 10
years continuously in which he had worked for more than 240
days, he was not entitled to the relief claimed in the petition.
After hearing the parties,the learned Single Judge has
rejected the petition by order dated November 10, 1997,
which has given rise to present appeal. Learned Counsel for
the appellant submitted that the appellant had put in 10
years of continuous service within the meaning of
Government Resolution dated October 17, 1988 as amended
by Resolution dated November 29, 1994 and, therefore, the
appellant should be granted benefit of pension; whereas the
learned Counsel for the respodnents pleaded that the
appellant had not put in 10 years of continuous service as a
daily wager in which he had worked for more than 240 days
and, therefore, the decision rendered by the learned Single
Judge should not be interfered with in present Appeal. We
have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned
Counsel for the respondents has produced an abstract
indicating the number of days during which the appellant had
worked from 1968-69 to 1988-89. It is ordered to be taken on
record of the appeal. The abstract reads as under :-
---------------------------------------------------------
Sr. Year Total
No. October to Sept. presence
-----------------------------------------------------
1. 1968-69 204 1/2
2. 1969-70 295
3. 1970-71 254
4. 1971-72 153
5. 1972-73 169
6. 1973-74 321
7. 1974-75 210
8. 1975-76 255 1/2
9. 1976-77 297
10. 1977-78 291
11. 1978-79 122
12. 1979-80 --
13. 1980-81 128
14. 1981-82 242
15. 1982-83 252
16. 1983-84 273
17. 1984-85 322
18. 1985-86 269
19. 1986-87 316
20. 1987-88 299
21. 1988-89 246.
Remarks: As seen from the statement that in the years 1969-70,
1970-71, 1973-74, 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 the appellant
had worked for more than 240 days, but his service is not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8738/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
continuous (marked ) and in the years 1981-82 to 1988-89 i.e. 8
years he had served continuously (marked ). As per resolution
dated 17.10.88 and looking to the fact above, eight years service is
not pensionable"
--------------------------------------------------------
i. As per the resolution dated October 17, 1988, daily wage worker
who has put in service for more than 10 years as per section 25-B of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is entitled to retiral benefits.
Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines
'continuous service'. According to said provision, a workman shall
be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that
period, in uniterrupted service, including service which may be
interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an
accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation
of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.
Sub-section (2) of Section 25-B introduces a deeming fiction and
provides that where a workman is not in continuous service within
the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he
shall be deemed to be in continuous service under the
circumstances mentioned in the said sub-section. From the
abstract, which is produced by the learned Counsel for the
respondents, there is no manner of doubt that in all for 14 years the
appellant had worked for more than 240 days. The Supreme Court
in the case of Workmen of American Express International Banking
Corporation vs. Management of American Express International
Banking Corporation, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 458 has ruled that continuous
service is to be counted by including sundays and other holidays,
sickness or authorised leave and accident or strike which is not
illegal or a cessation which is not due to any fault on the part of
workman. The respondents have failed to produce any material on
record of the case to indicate that in the year 1980-81 and 1981-82
there was a cessation of work due to any fault on the part of the
appellant. Therefore, the appellant had continuously served for a
period of more than 10 years within the meaning of Resolution
dated October 17, 1988. The submission made by the learned
Counsel for the respondents that the appellant had completed 240
days' work in 8 years only, which is less than 10 years and,
therefore, the appellant is not entitled to pension, cannot be
accepted. It is an admitted fact that while denying the claim of the
appellant, sundays and other holidays, sickness or authorised leave
etc. were not taken into consideration by the respondents, nor the
question was considered whether there was any cessation of work
which was not due to any fault on the part of the appellant. It may
be stated that the appellant served as a daily wager for about 21
years and retired from service on October 13, 1989. Having regard
to the facts of the case, even there were some small breaks in
service of the appellant which had taken place in the years 1980-81
and 1981 82, they have been condoned by the respondents for the
purpose of retiral benefits. On the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, we are of the opinion that as the appellant had completed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8738/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
240 days' work continuously in 10 years in which he had worked for
more than 240 days, he is entitled to the benefit of pension. The
learned Single Judge was not justified in rejecting the claim ofthe
appellant on the ground that the appellant had not worked for 240
days' continuously in 10 years and was, therefore, not entitled to
pension. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be accepted. For the
foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds. The order dated November
10, 1997 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application no. 7539/97 is hereby set aside and quashed. Special
Civil Application no. 7539/97 stands allowed. The letters dated
January 7, 1997 and June 20, 1997 are hereby set aside and
quashed. The respondents are directed to calculate pensionary
benefits within two months and thereafter to pay the amount due to
the appellant within one month after completing calculation. It is
clarified that if the amount is not paid as directed above, the
respondents shall pay the said amount to the appellant with 12%
interest thereon from the date of expiry of one month of making
calculation till the actual payment is made. The appeal is
accordingly, allowed, with no order as to costs."
The said decision of the co-ordinate bench was
challenged by the state before the Division bench and vide
order dated 16.01.2023 Letters Patent appeal no. 326 of 2022,
challenging the said decision, was dismissed by the division
bench.
14. Thus, by looking at the chart produced on the record by
the respondents, it is very clear that petitioner no.1 has
completed eight years of 240 days before the date of
termination, petitioner no.2 has completed seven years of 240
days, the petitioner no.3 & 4 have completed six years of 240
days and the petitioner no.5 has completed five years of 240
days prior to the termination, if Sundays and holidays are
added to the said working days.
15. Thus taking the said years of service in which the
petitioners have completed 240 days if added to their length
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8738/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
of service in light of awards passed by Labour court in case of
each petitioner, the petitioner no.1 would be completing ten
years of service in the year 1999, the petitioner no.2 would be
completing ten years of service in the year 2000, the
petitioner no.3 & 4 would be completing ten years of service
in the year 2001 and the petitioner no.5 would be completing
ten years of service in the year 2002 in view of the fact that
after august 1997 by virtue of the awards of the Labour Court
the respondents are deemed to be in continuous service.
16. In view of the foregoing observations and reasons, the
present writ petition requires to be allowed, which is hereby
allowed.
16.1 Consequently, the impugned communication dated
21.04.2015 passed by respondent No.3 to the extent of not
granting benefits to petitioners of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 is
hereby quashed and set aside by holding that the same is
arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
and so also passed contrary to law laid down by this Court /
Hon'ble Apex Court as aforesaid.
16.2 Accordingly, the respondents are directed to give all
the consequential benefits of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 to the
petitioner no.1 w.e.f. 22.08.1999, to the petitioner no.2 w.e.f.
22.08.2000, to the petitioner no.3 & 4 w.e.f. 22.08.2001 and
to the petitioner no.5 w.e.f. 22.08.2002. The petitioners shall
be given benefits notionally up to 13.10.2014. The petitioners
shall be entitled to receive actual difference of salary from
13.10.2014 until the date as mentioned in the following chart.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8738/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
Period for which
Petitioner Date of the Difference
Name of the Petitioner Age
No. birth of Salary is
payable
Maganbhai Chhaganbhai 13.10.2014 -
1 03.02.1965 60
Parmar 28.02.2025
Ganpatbhai Shabhai 13.10.2014 -
2 14.06.1961 64
Nayak 30.04.2021
Ishwarbhai Jalubhai 13.10.2014 -
3 01.06.1961 64
Nayak 30.06.2021
Ganpatbhai Maganbhai 13.10.2014 -
4 02.04.1971 54
Bariya 30.03.2021
Karansing Dhirsing
Bariya
Since deceased 13.10.2014 -
5 __ __
through 03.03.2023
Vinaben Wd/o Karansing
Bariya
16.3 Since the petitioner no. 4 has given up his claim for
wages after March, 2021, though it is directed that he shall
not be entitled to receive wages for the period from
30.03.2021 till today, the said period shall be treated as
continuous in service and the notionally the pay of the
petitioner no.4 be fixed as stated above and he shall be
provided actual salary and work from the date of this order.
16.4 Since petitioner no. 1 has retired on 28.02.2025 from
01.03.2025 he shall be entitled to receive all terminal benefits
including pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. It is
reported to this Court that petitioner no.5 has expired and his
widow is on record. Accordingly the respondents are directed
to grant retirement benefits like gratuity and leave
encashment to the widow of petitioner no.5 considering 33
years of continuous service of the petitioner including her
pension starting from 03.03.2023 i.e. the date on which the
petitioner no.5 has expired.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8738/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
16.5 Let respondents calculate and pay all these aforesaid
benefits including its arrears to petitioner on or before
15.03.2026, failing which, petitioner is entitled to receive
such arrears amount with 9% interest from 16.03.2026 till its
realization. It is also open for petitioners to initiate contempt
proceeding against erring officials of respondents for not
complying with aforesaid direction in time.
17. In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present writ
petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute, to the
aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
