Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Dalpatbhai Nanjibhai Galchar on 29 September, 2025

                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/SCA/24097/2022                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025

                                                                                                                  undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH Court OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 24097 of 2022


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

                      ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                      Yes         No
                                                                                          
                      ==========================================================
                                                  STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                                                           Versus
                                               DALPATBHAI NANJIBHAI GALCHAR
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR.HARSH SHAH, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
                      CHINTAN K GANDHI(8600) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      MR PRAJESH D SOLANKI(13366) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

                                                           Date : 29/09/2025

                                                          ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Chintan

Gandhi service of Rule on behalf of respondent.

2. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India challenging the judgment and

award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour

Court, Bhavnagar in I.D. Complaint No. 1 of 2010 dated

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/24097/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025

undefined

12.05.2022 whereby, the learned Labour Court has

directed the present petitioner to reinstate the

respondent with 20% back wages from the date of

complaint.

2.1. It is the case of the present petitioner that the

respondent was rendering service as part time sweeper

since 1993 and through Union ahnd the reference came

to be filed being Reference LCD No.30 of 2000 on

19.10.2000 seeking benefit of permanency. On

10.02.2006 the government resolution came to be

passed wherein powers of appointment off part time

workers came to be withdrawn with immediate effect

resulting into the termination of the respondent from

February, 2006 and after delay of four years the dispute

was raised by filing the complaint under section 33A of

the I.D.Act. Learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar has held

that the termination is illegal and the respondent is

entitled for the relief of reinstatement with 20% back

wages which is the subject matter of challenge before

this Court.

3. Heard learned AGP.Mr Harsh Shah for the State and

learned advocate Mr.Chintan Gandhi for the respondent.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/24097/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025

undefined

3.1. Learned AGP Mr.Harsh Shah submits that the

respondent was appointed as part time employee and

due to resolution dated 10.02.2006 his service was put

an end to as the powers of appointment of part time

employees were withdrawn. Learned AGP Mr.Harsh

Shah submits that the learned Court by ignoring the

delay 4 years has granted the relief of reinstatement

with 20% back wages and as on date the respondent had

attained the age of superannuation therefore, impugned

award deserves to be interfered with and petition is

required to be allowed. Learned AGP Mr.Harsh Shah has

relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case

Jagbir Singh Vs Haryana State Agriculture

Marketing Board and Anr. reported in 2009 (15)

SCC 327 has submitted that instead of granting relief of

reinstatement learned Court could have awarded lump

sum compensation and therefore, impugned award

deserves to be interfered with.

3.2. Per Contra, learned advocate Mr.Chintan Gandhi for

the respondent has submitted that learned Court has

examined the reasons for the delay in filing the

complaint before the learned Labour Court under

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/24097/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025

undefined

section 33A of the I.D.Act. Learned advocate Mr.Chintan

Gandhi submits that indisputably the reference with

regard to the regularization was pending on the day

when the termination was ordered and therefore, no

error has been committed by the learned Court in

granting relief of reinstatement and holding the

termination illegal. Learned advocate Mr.Chintan

Gandhi submits that the petitioner has not only violated

section 25(F) of the I.D.Act but also passed order in

contravention of section 33A therefore, also the

impugned award deserves to be upheld and the petition

is required to be rejected.

4. Considering the submissions made by the learned

advocates for the respective parties and on referring the

reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court, it

emerges that the petitioner was appointed as part time

sweeper in the month of 1993 and has filed a reference

seeking benefit of regularization through the Union on

19.10.2000 which was numbered as reference demand

30 of 2000. It is not in dispute that despite the pendency

of above reference service of the respondent was

terminated from February, 2006 neither the procedure

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/24097/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025

undefined

prescribed under section 33(2)(b) was followed nor

section 25(F) was followed therefore, the complaint

came to be filed under section 33A before the learned

Labour Court which was numbered as I.D. Complaint 1

of 2010 on 18.03.2010.

4.1. The reasons for the delay stated by the respondent

was that he made sincere efforts to get back the service

and though the assurance was given by the petitioner's

office but same was not fulfilled. Learned to Court after

examining the explanation offered for the delay, has

concluded the reference in favour of the respondent by

holding that delay was not with malafide intention and

has granted relief of 20% back wages from the date of

filing of complaint. In the opinion of this Court learned

Court has maintained the equity and by not granting the

benefit of 80% back wages is justified in passing the

order of reinstatement. The next contention which was

raised with regard to non-applicability of section 33A on

the ground that respondent was part timer and the

termination of the part timer during the pendency of

dispute of regularization would not amount to change in

condition as per section 33A of the ID Act.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/24097/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025

undefined

4.2. This Court has referred to the decision of the Apex

Court in the case of Bhavnagar Municipality Vs

Alibhai Karimbhai reported in AIR 1977 SC 1229

wherein, the Apex Court has held as under:

14.The character of the temporary employment of the respondents being a direct issue before the Tribunal, that condition of employment, however insecure, must subsist during the pendency of the dispute before the Tribunal and cannot be altered to their prejudice by putting an end to that temporary condition. This could have been done only with the express permission of the Tribunal. It goes with- out saying that the respondents were directly concerned in the pending industrial dispute. No one also deny that snapping of the temporary employment of the respondents is not to their prejudice. All the five features adverted to above are present in the instant case. To permit rupture in employment, in this case, without the prior sanction of the Tribunal will be to set at naught the avowed object of section 33 which is principally directed to preserve the status quo under specified circumstances in the, interest of industrial peace during the adjudication. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that the appellant has contravened the provisions of section 33(a)(a) of the Act and the complaint under section 33A, at the instance of the respondents, is maintainable. The submission of Mr. Parekh to the contrary cannot be accepted.

5. On referring the above ratio as well as the facts involved

in the case on hand, in the opinion of this Court, the

learned Court is justified in directing the present

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/24097/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025

undefined

petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 20% back

wages however, it emerges that during the pendency of

the petition the respondent attained the age of

superannuation in the month of January 2025 therefore,

in the considered opinion of this Court the benefit

awarded by the learned Labour Court is required to be