[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Veraval Patan Joint Nagarpalika vs Arvindbhai Muldass Gondaliya on 27 February, 2026
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/200/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 200 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/1234/2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 200 of 2026
==========================================================
VERAVAL PATAN JOINT NAGARPALIKA
Versus
ARVINDBHAI MULDASS GONDALIYA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARIBHAI J PATEL FOR MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 27/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Haribhai J. Patel for learned
advocate Mr.Deepak P. Sanchela for the appellant - original
petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav A. Vyas for the
respondent.
2. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Clause 15
of the Letters Patent, 1865 being aggrieved by the Common
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/200/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
Judgment and Order dated 19.03.2025 and modified on
09.04.2025 by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application No.1234 of 2025 and allied matters.
3. The brief facts of the case, narrated by the learned
Single Judge in the impugned Judgment and Order dated
19.03.2025, are as under :-
"2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order passed
by the learned labour Court at Junagadh in
Recovery 33C(2) application No.40 of 2023 below
Exhibit 27 dated 08.10.2024 whereby the learned
labour Court has directed the present petitioner to
pay the difference of the wages as per the award
dated 21.08.2015 passed in Reference (IT) No.225
of 2003 of Rs.8,49,433/- within a period of 30 days
and if the said amount is not deposited within a
period of 30 days, the same shall carry interest at
the rate of 7% till the actual realization. Details of
difference of wages of petitioners are as under:
Sr Petition Name Ref. Amount
No Number Applicati (Rs.)
on
Number
1 SCA/ Bharat Damodarbhai 40/2023 8,49,433
1071/2025 Joshi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/200/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
2 SCA/ Harish 42/2023 5,00,296
1091/2025 Parshottambhai
Dushara
3 SCA/ Hiteshbhai 41/2023 8,49,433
1108/2025 Mulshankar
Joshi
4 SCA/ Javed Mojdin Khan 38/2023 8,49,433
1154/2025
5 SCA/ Govindbhai 43/2023 6,70,677
1161/2025 Sarmanbhai
Kamaniya
6 SCA/ Jitendra 39/2023 8,49,433
1198/2025 Revashankar
Trivedi
7 SCA/ Arvindbhai Muldas 37/2023 8,49,433
1234/2025 Gondaliya
8 SCA/ Pravinbhai 36/2023 8,49,433
1849/2025 Nathabhai
Lukka
3. It is the case of the present petitioner that the
respondent herein has filed the Reference being
Reference (IT) No.225 of 2003 alleging that
though the respondents are working as per the
Parishishth annexed with the Anusuchi (terms of
reference) since 1996 to 1998 onward and though
they have completed 240 days continuous service,
their services were not regularized inspite of
having the sanctioned set up and they had not
been paid the benefit of regular employee. The
said Reference was awarded in favour of the
present respondents on 21.08.2015 and 15
employees whose names were figured in the
Parishishth were granted the benefit of
regularization and the petitioner was directed to
make the pay fixation from the day on completion
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/200/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
of 240 days however, the notional effect was given
on the said pay fixation from the date of their
regularization till the date of their award, which
was challenged before this Court by way of the
petition being Special Civil Application No.20968
of 2015 which came to be dismissed on
22.11.2016 by this Court as the order was not
implemented by the present petitioner therefore,
contempt petition came to be filed before this
Court being Misc. Civil Application No.3294 of
2017 which was disposed of on 24.10.2019 by this
Court with direction to implement the award
within a period of two months and liberty to revive
the contempt petition was reserved in case of non-
implementation of said award.
4. Thereafter, the order was passed by the present
petitioner-Nagarpalika granting the benefit of
regularization from 01.01.2009 i.e. on completion
of 240 days as per the calculation made by the
petitioner Nagarpalika. The benefits were paid to
the respondents employees on 17.09.2019 which
were remained unchallenged before any of the
forum. It is the case of the present petitioners that
thereafter the recovery application came to be
filed before the learned labour Court claiming the
benefit of the award on completion of one year of
their initial appointment. The learned Reference
Court after considering the evidence adduced has
directed the present petitioner to pay the amount
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/200/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
which is claimed in the recovery application,
which is subject matter of consideration before
this Court."
4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Haribhai J. Patel for the appellant -
original petitioner submitted that both the Labour Court and
Hon'ble Single Judge have committed an error by relying upon
the calculation-sheet placed on record by the respective
workmen, without any supporting evidence, as such
computation was not prepared by any expert and therefore,
no benefit could have been granted by the Labour Court to the
respondents-workmen relying upon such computation.
4.2. It was further submitted that the appellant-Municipality
has granted the benefit as per the award passed in Reference
(IT) No.225 of 2003 by considering the date of 1 st January,
2009 for all the workmen on the ground that they have
completed 240 days in the past twelve months and also
referred to the computation placed on record along with the
Office Order dated 17.09.2019 annexed at Annexure E in the
Writ Petitions, wherein, the details of the number of days
worked by each workman from January, 2008 to December,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/200/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
2008 are mentioned. It was therefore submitted that as the
details are placed on record along with the order of
implementation of the award passed in Reference (IT) No.225
of 2003 and the respondents-workmen have accepted such
computation, they could not have raised any objection
thereafter, to consider the notional pay for fixation of salary
from the date of their appointment on the basis that they have
worked for 240 days with the Municipality.
4.3. Learned advocate Mr.Haribhai Patel therefore submitted
that the Labour Court has committed an error by accepting
the computation given by the respondents-workmen without
any evidence on record and therefore, the order dated
17.09.2019 passed by the Municipality, granting benefit as
per the award passed in Reference (IT) No.225 of 2003, is
required to be upheld and the impugned orders are liable to
be quashed and set aside.
5. We have perused the Judgment and Order passed by the
Labour Court in Recovery Application, being Recovery 33(C)
(2) Application No.37 of 2023, which was challenged before
the learned Single Judge by the appellant and on perusal of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/200/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
the same, it emerges that the respondents-workmen have filed
the Recovery Application under Section 33C(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the award passed in
Reference (IT) No.225 of 2003, confirmed by this Court in
Special Civil Application No.20968 of 2015, was implemented
without fixing the pay scale of the respondents-workmen from
the year in which they have completed 240 days of work and
arbitrarily, the Municipality has fixed 1 st January, 2009 as a
date for regularization of the respondents-workmen.
6. The Labour Court after considering the evidence led by
both the sides has come to the conclusion that the
Municipality failed to place on record any material to show
that the computation given by the respondents-workmen is
not correct and no evidence is placed on record and no
justification or explanation is tendered as to why the date 1st
January, 2009 is considered for the purpose of giving the
benefit of regularisation to the respondents-workmen as per
the award passed in Reference (IT) No.225 of 2003, contrary
to the directions issued by the Labour Court in the said award
which clearly stipulates that the benefit of regularisation is to
be given from the year in which the respondents-workmen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/200/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
have completed 240 days of work by considering the same as
notional benefit to fix the pay scale with effect from the year
2015, when the award was passed on 21.08.2015. This Court
also in Special Civil Application No.20968 of 2015 has
observed as under :
"4. Only contention raised by the learned Counsel
for the petitioner by amending the petition is that
the said regularization of the appointees of 1994
and promotions were effected during the period
when administrator was appointed to administer
the affairs of the Nagar Palika and the orders
were passed by the State Government and not the
Nagar Palika. Even if that was so, it was
obligatory upon the Nagar Palika to make
recommendations keeping in view Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India. Under the
circumstances, Labour Court cannot be said to
have committed an error while directing
regularization of the workmen concerned and
therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the
impugned award. This petition, therefore, fails
and is rejected."
7. The aforesaid order dated 22.11.2016 was subject to the
application for recall filed by the appellant being Misc. Civil
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/200/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
Application (for recall) No.1 of 2018 which was also disposed
of by the learned Single Judge by order dated 14.06.2019
observing as under :
"12. This Court in para 4 of its original order has
already pointed out the discriminatory treatment
meted out to the workmen by preferring junior
over the senior workmen. While deciding issue
no.2, the Labour Court also has elaborately
pointed out such discrimination. It was noticed
from the evidence that since more than 23 years,
the daily wagers were being appointed in absence
of the rules of recruitment being in place. It was
also noticed that since 2010, even the sanctioned
posts were being filled up through the daily
wagers. Thus, the two classes of employees being
the daily wagers, appointed before 1994 and after
1994, were daily wagers having been appointed
de-hors recruitment procedure and were thus,
similarly situated. Learned counsel for the
petitioner argued that appointment of the
respondent-workmen was illegal and therefore
regularization ought not to have been ordered.
When pointedly asked whether the municipality
has taken any action against the illegal appointees
post 1994, he submitted that no such action was
taken. Thus, on one hand the illegally appointees
post 1994 are retained in the set up with the
benefit of regularization and on the other hand,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/200/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
the contention contrary to its own conduct is
raised by the applicant, which cannot be
countenanced. It is only on account of the
perpetuating illegalities or irregularities that the
respondent-workmen herein most of whom have
now completed about more than 30 years of
services are sought to be exploited by regularizing
those appointed subsequent to them. As
distinguished from the general principles of
service jurisprudence, labour legislation, more
particularly Industrial Disputes Act, does not
tolerate unfair labour practice. When the
applicant does not desire to follow the recruitment
rules; and has not followed it since more than 23
years, its' conduct to resort to unfair labour
practice by regularizing the workmen appointed
post 1994 and opposing the regularization of
those appointed prior to 1994 cannot be
countenanced. Thus, not only discrimination is
writ large; but unfair labour practice is also
resorted to.
13. Seniority even in cases of daily wagers has
significant role to play if sections 25G and 25H of
the I.D.Act are taken into account. The provision
respectively propound the principle of "last in first
out" and preference to the senior workman; on
availability of work of a similar nature. The
necessary corollary flowing from the principles
akin to sections 25G and 25H would be that even
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/200/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
in the cases of existing daily wagers or temporary
or ad-hoc appointees, better position like
promotion and other benefits, if intended to be
bestowed by the employer to its workmen, it shall
first be bestowed upon the senior workmen. The
principles would stand violated in case of
preference of junior workmen in the matter of
regularization or promotion."
8. It is also pertinent to note that the order dated
17.09.2019, passed after the respondents-workmen preferred
Misc. Civil Application No.3294 of 2017, by fixing the date as
1st January, 2009, is without any basis. Therefore, we do not
find any substance in this Appeal when the learned Single
Judge, while dismissing the Special Civil Application No.1161
of 2025, has rightly observed as under :
"8. Challenging the above order, the petition
which was filed before this Court was dismissed,
however, no implementation of the award was
made therefore, the contempt petition was filed
being Misc. Civil Application No.3294 of 2017
which was disposed of with direction to comply
with the award within a period of two months and
liberty was reserved in favour of the respondent.
Thereafter, the petitioner has passed an order on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/200/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
17.09.2019 granting the benefit of regularization
from 01.01.2009 and fixing the pay scale
accordingly. Referring the impugned order, it
appears that neither the petitioners nor the
respondents have placed any evidence on record
to show that 240 days are completed on a
particular date. However, this Court has referred
the reasons assigned in Reference (IT) No.225 of
2003 wherein the muster roll was placed on
record by each of the employee. In addition to
that, during the cross examination of the first
party of the said Reference, it is admitted that
from the date of their appointment the concerned
workmen have served continuously. The
respondent-workmen have claimed the benefit of
regularization on completion of one year of
service, which was disputed by the present
petitioners on the ground that the completion of
the service is done from 01.01.2009.
9. Supporting the contention, the petitioners have
not placed on record any documentary evidence
suggesting that the order, which was passed on
17.09.2019 granting the benefit of regularization.
The petitioners have claimed that the calculation
sheet, which is produced is not supported by any
expert however, at the same time no contrary
evidences were produced by the present
petitioners to show that the said calculation sheet
is erroneous. In that background, this Court did
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/200/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
not find any infirmity in the impugned order
directing the present petitioner to pay the amount
as claimed in the recovery application."
9. We are in complete agreement with the aforesaid
findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and there is no
infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge, as well as in the order passed by the Labour Court.
Further, the issue in the present appeal is covered by the
decision of this Court wherein, this Court has dismissed the
group of appeals preferred by the present appellant, vide
order dated 27.11.2025 passed in Letters Patent Appeal
No.1256 of 2025 and allied matters. The present Appeal
therefore, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.
No orders as to cost.
10. In view of dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application No.1
of 2025 would not survive and the same also stands dismissed.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
Hitesh
