[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Deputy Executive Engineer vs Kanajibhai Lavajibhai Pipariya on 20 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10372/2020 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10372 of 2020
================================================================
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR.
Versus
KANAJIBHAI LAVAJIBHAI PIPARIYA & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS ROSHNI PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1,2
MR JIGNESH D LAMBA(12891) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 20/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioners - State Authorities
under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred
to as "the Act") challenging the judgment and award dated
24.10.2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Jamnagar (hereinafter be referred to as "the Labour Court") in
Reference (LCJ) No. 52 of 2016 whereby, the learned Judge has partly
allowed the reference filed by the respondent-workman and granted
reinstatement without continuity of service and without back wages.
2. Brief facts leading to the present petition are that, the
respondent-workman had worked as a daily wager from 01.06.1993 to
31.12.2008 and that his services came to be terminated orally on
31.12.2008. That, the respondent-workman was given demand notice,
which was replied by the original respondent-workman. It is the say of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10372/2020 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026
undefined
the respondent-workman that he was not given any appointment
order and that his services came to be terminated orally without any
issuance of notice and therefore, the respondent-workman filed the
aforesaid reference before the Labour Court and also filed his
Statement of Claim. That, in response to the Statement of Claim, the
petitioners filed their written statement denying all the allegations
made by the respondent-workman. That, the Labour Court, Jamnagar
partly allowed the Reference (L.C.J) No. 52 of 2016 by passing
impugned judgment and award dated 24.10.2019.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and award dated 24.10.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar in
Reference (L.C.J) No. 52 of 2016, the petitioners have preferred the
present petition.
4. Heard Ms. Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader,
appearing for the petitioner - State Authorities and Mr. Yogen Pandya,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman.
5. Learned AGP Ms. Patel has submitted that the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is illegal, unjust,
arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on record
and the provisions of the Act and is based on assumption and
presumption and therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside.
She has submitted that the impugned award is passed without any
jurisdiction as much as there is no evidence produced by the
respondent-workman in support of his claim. She has further
submitted that the Labour Court has committed a grave error in not
considering the case of the petitioner that the respondent-workman
had voluntarily left and chosen to remain continuously absent. She
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10372/2020 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026
undefined
has further submitted that the respondent-workman had never
worked with the petitioners and had continuously remained absent
during his service tenure. Over and above the grounds agitated in the
memo of petition, learned AGP Ms. Patel has urged that the impugned
award is required to be quashed and set aside and the present
petition is required to be allowed.
6. As against that, learned counsel Mr. Yogen Pandya, appearing
for the respondent-workman, has opposed the present petition and
submitted that in case of similarly situated workman, who had
challenged the award of the Labour Court, Jamnagar of the even date
i.e. 24.10.2019 passed in Reference (LCJ) No. 56 of 2016 before this
Court in Special Civil Application No.5191 of 2020, this Court has
allowed the petition vide order dated 09.08.2021 and directed the
respondents - State Authorities to reinstate the petitioner on his
original post with continuity of service without back wages. He has
further submitted that the said order of the learned Single Judge was
further challenged by the respondents petitioners herein in Letters
Patent Appeal No.729 of 2022 and other allied appeals, which came to
be dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 07.06.2022. He
has further submitted that the State Authorities had thereafter filed
Review Application challenging the order of the Division Bench, which
also came to be dismissed vide order dated 05.04.2024 and,
therefore, learned counsel Mr. Pandya has urged that the present
petition be dismissed.
7. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs State of
Punjab And Ors., reported in (2002) 9 SCC 492, wherein it has been
observed thus:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10372/2020 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026
undefined
"3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on examining the
materials on record, we fail to understand how the continuity of service
could be denied once the plaintiff is directed to be reinstated in service on
setting aside the order of termination. It is not a case of fresh appointment,
but it is a case of reinstatement. That being the position, direction of the
High Court that the plaintiff will not get continuity of service cannot be
sustained and we set aside the part of the impugned order. So far as the
arrears of salary is concerned, we see no infirmity with the direction which
was given by the lower appellate court taking into account the facts and
circumstances including the fact that the suitwas filed after a considerable
length of time. That part of the decree denying the arrears of salary stands
affirmed and this appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated
above."
8. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enunciated that the
continuity of service cannot be denied to the workman if he is
directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of
termination.
9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record and also the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gurpreet Singh
(Supra). The fact remains that in case of similarly situated workman,
this Court has allowed the petition in favour of the concerned
workman and against the present petitioners vide order dated
09.08.2021. The same was carried further in Letters Patent Appeal by
the petitioners herein, which came to be dismissed by the Division
Bench vide order dated 07.06.2022. Against which, the petitioners
had filed Review Application almost after two years i.e. in the year
2024, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 05.04.2024.
In view thereof, the present petition does not survive and the same is
required to be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10372/2020 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026
undefined
10. In the result, the present petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is
discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
