Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Kantibhai Devshibhai Kumbhar on 9 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9502/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9502 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
KANTIBHAI DEVSHIBHAI KUMBHAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MRS NASRIN N SHAIKH(2451) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 09/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms.Nasrin
Shaikh waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the award in Reference
IT No.32 of 2014 by the learned Industrial Tribunal,
Bhavnagar whereby, present petitioner was directed to
grant benefit of regularization from 15.07.2005 and to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9502/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
pay all consequential benefits including the retirement
benefits. It is further clarified that the period from
15.07.2005 to 29.03.2014 to be treated as notional.
3. It is the case of the present petitioner that respondent
was appointed as daily wager purely on temporary and
ad-hoc basis depending upon the availability of work. On
15.07.2005, the respondent's service was put an end to
therefore, reference being Reference I.T. No.2 of 2005
came to be filed before the learned Labour Court where
in learned Labour Court has passed judgment and award
on 22.01.2009 directing the present petitioner to
reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and
without back wages. Accordingly the respondent's
service were reinstated from 21.10.2009 on civil site of
division office at Amreli. Claiming the benefit of
regularization, another reference came to be filed being
Reference I.T. No.32 of 2014 which came to be allowed
in favour of the respondent by granting relief as
mentioned hereinabove and same is the subject matter
of challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the
petitioner and learned advocate Ms.Nasrin Shaikh for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9502/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
the respondent.
4.1. Learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw submits that the
respondent has claimed the date of appointment as 1991
however, no evidence is adduced to show that he was
working since 1991. Further learned advocate
Mr.H.S.Munshaw submits that as per the contention
raised before the learned Labour Court which was not
denied by the respondent, the respondent was appointed
from 1994 and in absence of any sanction setup, no
benefit of permanency can be granted in favour of the
respondent. Learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw further
submits that earlier the Board of Directors of GSRTC in
its meeting dated 27.06.1991 resolved that those
unskilled labourers who completed service not less than
10 years as on 01.10.1991 in the Corporation, was
appointed on minimum pay scale of helper/majoor as per
the Government Resolution dated 27.06.1991.
Thereafter, again the resolution came to be passed in its
meeting dated 18.07.1994 as well as 19.07.1994
resolving that daily wage unskilled labourers who
completed 12 years of service be granted the benefit of
time scale. Learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw further
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9502/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
submits that thereafter on 06.06.2007 another 61
employees who are in the cadre of helper were
regularized by granting benefit of time scale however,
thereafter no employees have been granted the benefit
of permanency and has been granted benefit of time
scale. Learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw submits that
in absence of any post, no benefits can be awarded to
the respondent. However, without considering the same
learned court has allowed the reference in favour of the
respondent, therefore, same is required to be set aside
by allowing this petition.
4.2. Per Contra, learned advocate Ms.Nasrin Shaikh
submits that though respondent was appointed in the
year 1991 and time and again benefits of permanency
were granted to the similarly situated employees, the
respondent was deprived from the benefits of
permanency. It is submitted by the learned advocate
Ms.Nasrin Shaikh that after serving for 30 years, by not
granting benefit of permanency, the petitioner has
adopted unfair labour practice which is prohibited under
I.D.Act and therefore, no error has been committed
error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9502/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
granting the benefit of permanency. Learned advocate
Ms.Nasrin Shaikh submits that initially the petitioner as
well as the other identically situated employees
including one Raghavbhai Mepabhai Solanki has filed
the complaint under section 33A of the I.D.Act and
during the pendency of the said complaint, Raghavbhai
Mepabhai Solanki was regularized though he was
terminated along with the present petitioner, however,
the benefit was denied to the present petitioner.
Learned advocate Ms.Nasrin Shaikh submits that as per
the list of 61 employees who were regularized, some of
the employees were appointed in the year 1991 and
though they were juniors to the respondent, the
petitioner Corporation has granted them the benefit of
permanency, however by not granting the said benefit in
favour of the respondent the petitioner-Corporation has
given the discriminatory treatment to the respondent.
Therefore, learned Tribunal is justified in granting the
said benefit by passing the above order in favour of the
respondent, therefore, no interference is required.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned
advocates for the respective parties and referring the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9502/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
reasons by the learned Reference Court, it emerges that
as per the claim of the present respondent, the
respondent had entered the S.T.Corporation, Amreli in
Civil Department as a Helper in the year 1991 and on
having terminated, the reference came to be filed being
Reference I.T. No.2 of 2005 which came to be allowed
on 22.01.2009 by granting the relief of reinstatement
with continuity of service without back wages. The said
award has attained finality and respondent was
reinstated with the petitioner-Corporation and he served
continuously since the date of reinstatement. As
continuity was granted by the learned Tribunal while
awarding reinstatement the learner Tribunal has
believed the service of the respondent from 1991
onwards. The contention raised by the present petitioner
in the additional affidavit that date of joining is not 1991
but it is 1994, however no contemporaneous record was
produced to substantiate the same and in that
background this Court is of the view that no error has
been committed by the learned Reference Court in
believing the date of joining as 1991.
5.1. With regard to the benefit of permanency which was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9502/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
claimed the respondent has contended before the
learned Reference Court that though appointed in the
year 1991 and subsequently number of employees who
are granted the benefit of permanency namely
Raghavbhai Mepabhai Solanki, Anandubhai Vala,
Chandubhai Kumbhar, the respondent was deprived
from the said benefit. The said contention is supported
from the list of 61 employees which are placed on record
by the present petitioner along with additional affidavit.
On referring the said list it emerges that the employees
whose appointment date is subsequent to the present
respondent namely Parmar Gauthambhai Ramjibai
appointed on 20.01.1991, Virsangji Varvaji Thakor dated
20.04.1991, Bhikhubhai Budhabhai Rathod dated
31.08.1991 were regularized by the present petitioner-
Corporation.
5.2. It is undisputed fact that respondent has regularized
the service of the employees by passing 3 resolutions
dated 27.06.1991, 18.07.1994 and 07.09.2007. only
explanation offered for not granting said benefit in
favour of the respondent is that respondent did not
complete 10 years of service on the cut off date i.e
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9502/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
01.10.1991. However, the list which is annexed with the
additional affidavit suggest that the date of the
employees who were granted benefit of permanency is
1991, though join after the respondent. Therefore, said
contention is falsified from his own affidavit filed before
this Court. As respondent has worked continuously from
the date of appointment i.e 1991 onwards the learner
Court is justified in granting the benefit of permanency,
in view of the fact the juniors to the present respondent
has also been granted the said benefit. The reliance was
placed by the learned advocate Mr.Munshaw in the
decision rendered by this Court in SCA No.10974 of
1993 LPA 1544 of 2005 and SCA 11717 of 2014 was on
the different facts as in those cases the benefit of
settlement was sought to be given which was directed by
the learned Court by creating supernumerary post and
in that background this Court has set aside the order
passed by the learned Reference Court. The facts being
different in the present case, therefore said judgment
does not come to the rescue of the present petitioner.
6. In view of the above, the petition being devoid of merits,
deserves to be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9502/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
7. Resultantly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
ARCHANA S. PILLAI
