[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Kantibhai Devshibhai Kumbhar on 20 January, 2026
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1166/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026
undefined
```
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1166 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/9502/2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1166 of 2025
==========================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
KANTIBHAI DEVSHIBHAI KUMBHAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MRS NASRIN N SHAIKH(2451) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 20/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw appearing
for the appellant and learned advocate Mrs. Nasrin N.
Shaikh appearing for the respondent No.1.
1.1 By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
1865, the original petitioner has challenged the Judgment
and Order dated 09.09.2025 in Special Civil Application No.
9502 of 2023.
2. The appellant had preferred the said petition under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging
the Judgment and Award in Ref.(I.T). No. 32 of 2014 passed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1166/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026
undefined
by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar whereby, the
appellant was directed to grant the benefit of regularisation
to the respondent from 15.07.2005 and to pay all
consequential benefits including the retirement benefits.
However, the learned Industrial Tribunal ordered to
consider the period from 15.07.2005 to 29.03.2014 as
notional period for the purpose of granting arrears.
3. Brief facts of the case are that :-
3.1 The respondent was appointed as Daily Wager on
adhoc basis depending upon the availability of work and
started work from 06.09.1994. On 15.07.2005 the services
of the respondent was terminated and therefore, Ref. (I.T)
No. 2 of 2005 was preferred before the Labour Court, Amreli
which was allowed by the Labour Court by Judgment and
Award dated 22.01.2009 directing the appellant to reinstate
the respondent with continuity of service and without back
wages.
4. The Judgment and Award dated 22.01.2009 has
attained finality as the same was not challenged by the
appellant.
5. The appellant reinstated the respondent from
21.10.2009 at Amreli. The respondent thereafter preferred
the Reference I.T No. 32 of 2014 claiming the benefit of
regularisation which was allowed by the Industrial Tribunal,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1166/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026
undefined
Bhavnagar vide order dated 14.10.2022.
6. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the Writ
Petition. The learned Single Judge after considering the
facts of the case dismissed the Writ Petition by observing as
under :
"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 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 le 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 heen granted
the said benefit. The reliance was placed by
the learned advocate Mr.Munshaw in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1166/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026
undefined
decision rendered by this Courtain 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."
7. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw for the appellant
submitted that the appellant has not actually worked for 10
years on the cut-off date as unskilled labourer. In view of
the termination of the service from 2005 onwards.
Therefore, it was submitted that the respondent-workman
would not be entitled to the benefit of the Resolution dated
07.09.2007 passed by the appellant-Corporation dated
07.09.2007, considering his absence from duty and
shortfall in period of service.
8. It was submitted that the appellant-Corporation has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1166/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026
undefined
taken a policy decision since 1991 to the effect that the
unskilled labourer who have worked for 10 years would be
entitled to regularization on the post of Helper. It was
therefore, submitted that both the Labour Court as well as
the learned Single Judge have committed error by directing
the appellant-Corporation to regularise the service of the
respondent-workman.
9. On the other hand learned advocate Ms. Sheikh for the
respondent submitted that the appellant has not challenged
the legality and validity of the Order and Award passed by
the Labour Court. It was submitted that the appellant has
not challenged the order dated 22.01.2009 passed in I.T
No. 2 of 2005 by which the respondent was granted the
continuity of service from 15.07.2005 onwards. It was,
therefore, submitted that since 1994 the respondent has
discharged the duties as unskilled labourer and accordingly
as per the Resolutions passed by the appellant, the
respondent is entitled to regularisation of service and,
therefore, no interference is called for by this Court while
exercising limited jurisdiction. By entertaining the appeal
under the Letters Patent Appeal. It was also pointed by
learned advocate Ms. Sheikh that service of the similarly
situated persons have been regularised by the appellant-
Corporation and their services are also considered on
sanctioned set up.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1166/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026
undefined
11. Considering the submissions by both the sides it is not
in dispute that the appellant-Corporation has not
challenged the Order and Award dated 22.01.2009 passed
by the Labour Court in Reference I.T No. 2 of 2005.
12. The effect of Reference I.T No. 2 of 2005 is that the
respondent can be said to have discharged the service
continuously as Labour Court has granted reinstatement
with continuity of service. In such circumstances,
undisputedly the appellant-Corporation is required to
implement its own Resolution by considering the service of
the respondent on continuous basis since 1994 and to give
benefit of regularisation.
13. In such circumstances, no case is made out by the
appellant-Corporation to interfere with the impugned order
passed by the learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single
Judge.
14. The appeal being devoid of any merits is accordingly
dismissed.
15. Accordingly, Civil Application does not survive and
stands disposed of.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
MARY VADAKKAN
