Allowed

Yogesh Vallabhdas Kelaiya v. Jetpur Navagadh Municipality

Gujarat HC24 Sept 2019LPA/735/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Single Judge order substituting Rs.30,000 compensation for reinstatement. Court held that since similarly situated employees were reinstated, the appellant must also be reinstated with continuity of service as the retrenchment violated mandatory Industrial Disputes Act provisions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; Labour Court award of reinstatement with continuity of service restored; Respondent directed to comply within three months.

Yogesh Vallabhdas Kelaiya Vs Jetpur Navagadh… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/LPA/735/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 735 of 2014 In

¶4

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 803 of 2014 In

¶5

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21932 of 2006

¶6

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: Sd/-

¶7

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT and

¶8

HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

¶9

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

¶10

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	No
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	No
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	No

¶11

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

¶12

YOGESH VALLABHDAS KELAIYA

¶13

Versus

¶14

JETPUR NAVAGADH MUNICIPALITY

¶15

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

¶16

Appearance:

¶17

DIPESH D CHHAYA(8075) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 JEET Y RAJYAGURU(8039) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR BHAVESH P TRIVEDI(2731) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR RR TRIVEDI(941) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT and

¶20

HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

¶21

Page 1 of 16

¶22

C/LPA/735/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶23

Date : 24/09/2019

¶24

CAV JUDGMENT

¶25

(PER : HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER)

¶26

By filing this Letters Patent Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant has challenged order dated 21.01.2014 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.21932 of 2006, whereby the appellant herein is held entitled to receive Rs.30,000/- in lieu of reinstatement in service and towards benefits of service.

¶27

Short facts leading to the filing of present appeal are as under:-

¶28

2.1 That the appellant herein-workman was serving as a Naka Clerk on purely temporary basis on the fixed salary of Rs.850/- per month. That he served from 05.04.1989 to 27.12.1990. That thereafter as his services were not required, he was not called for the duty. That the appellant raised an industrial dispute alleging inter alia that he has been discharged from service w.e.f. 27.12.1990 without following any procedure as required under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”]. It is submitted that his termination is in breach of section 25(f) of the Act as he had completed not less than 240 days in the last preceding year. That the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Rajkot, which was numbered as Reference (LCR) No.650/1991. That the original petitioner–respondent herein filed the objection against the statement of claim at Exh.14. It was submitted that the appellant herein was kept in service only for a fixed period on daily wages and his appointment was for a fixed period and on contract basis. It was submitted that in view of section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act, there was no question of any notice and/or notice pay and/or retrenchment compensation as required under section 25(f) of the Act. That

¶29

Page 2 of 16

¶30

C/LPA/735/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶31

thereafter both the parties led the evidence, oral as well as documentary and on appreciation of evidence, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has held that section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act would not be applicable and that the termination of the appellant herein on and from 27.12.1990 is in breach of section 25(f) of the Act. Consequently the learned Labour Court has quashed and set aside the action of the respondent herein discharging the workman from service from 27.12.1990 as illegal and has directed to reinstate the appellant herein with continuity of service but without back wages.

¶32

2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with said award dated 17.04.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No.650/1991, the respondent herein preferred the Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. After hearing both the sides, learned Single Judge passed the impugned order and the appellant herein is held entitled to receive Rs.30,000/in lieu of reinstatement in service and towards benefits of service.

¶33

2.3 Being aggrieved by it, the appellant has preferred present appeal.

¶34

It is contended by the appellant that the appellant has filed Misc. Civil Application No.803 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No.21932 of 2006 for review of the order passed in the main petition. It is contended that vide order dated 21.03.2014, the learned Single Judge has directed the respondent to maintain status quo ante which was prevailing prior to 14.03.2014 on condition that the applicant shall return the amount of Rs. 30,000/- which was deposited in the account of the appellant. It is contended that pursuant to the said order, the applicant has returned the amount of Rs.30,000/- by cheque dated 24.03.2014 drawn on State Bank of India, Jetpur Branch and it was further intimated by letter dated 24.03.2014 to the Nagarpalika and he was allotted the work of

¶35

Page 3 of 16

¶36

C/LPA/735/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶37

election duty in Lok Sabha Election in Gujarat at the relevant time. It is also contended that Misc. Civil Application No.803 of 2014 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.04.2014. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders passed in main petition as well as in Misc. Civil Application, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the order of modification in the order of Labour Court and payment of Rs.30,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

¶38

Heard Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr.Bhavesh Trivedi, learned advocate for the respondent at length. Perused the material placed on record.

¶39

Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has seriously erred by partly allowing the petition of the respondent Nagarpalika though there was clear violation of mandatory provisions of the Act. He has submitted that the identical and similar situated employees, who were appointed with the appellant, were taken on duty by the respondent – Nagarpalika and they have made them permanent and Nagarpalika has lost similar cases in the High Court and those employees are serving as the work is available with the respondent Nagarpalika. He has also submitted that earlier, the Labour Court has dismissed the application of the applicant which was assailed by filing Special Civil Application No.7714 of 2001 by the appellant wherein the matter was remanded to the Labour Court for fresh consideration in view of the fact that the similar situated persons were granted benefits. Thereafter, the Labour Court has passed the impugned order of granting reinstatement without back wages. According to him, the appellant is entitled to parity amongst the similar situated employees. He has also assailed that the Nagarpalika has accepted the order of the Labour Court and has also lost in cases of similar situated persons and given them permanent service. He has submitted that all the materials were

¶40

Page 4 of 16

¶41

C/LPA/735/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶42

placed before this Court in review petition but the same was not considered by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge has modified the order of reinstatement and directed to pay Rs.30,000/- to the appellant as compensation. According to him, the order of the Labour Court is legally tenable and the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge passed in the main petition as well as in Misc. Civil Application are required to be set aside. He has prayed to allow the present Letters Patent Appeal.

¶43

5.1 Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru, learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the following decisions:

¶44

In the case of Jasmer Sing Vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 4 SCC 458 ;

¶45

In the case of Ajaypal Singh Vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation, (2015) 6 SCC 321 ;

¶46

In the case of Gauri Shanker Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 12 SCC 754 ;

¶47

Per contra , Mr.Bhavesh Trivedi, learned advocate for the respondent – Nagarpalika has vehemently opposed the appeal and has submitted that there is no illegality committed by the learned Single Judge in modifying the relief and in passing the impugned order directed to pay lump sum monetary compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the workman in lieu of reinstatement and continuity of service. While inviting attention of the Court to the observations of the Labour Court as to the similar situated other persons, he has submitted that the fact of those persons and fact of the present appellant is different as those persons have continuously worked with the Nagarpalika, whereas, the present appellant has only

¶48

Page 5 of 16

¶49

C/LPA/735/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶50

worked for limited period. He has submitted that there was no continuous work carried out by the appellant. He has submitted that after 16 years, the Labour Court has passed the order and, therefore, this fact has also been considered by the learned Single Judge while modifying the order of the Labour Court. He has further submitted that initially, the appellant has worked as Naka Clerk for a period from 05.04.1989 to 27.12.1990 and, thereafter, during the pendency of the reference till 2006 he was not in service and after the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, during pendency of Special Civil Application ,to avoid any idle wages to be paid under Section 17(b) of the Act, the appellant was reinstated in service. He has submitted that such reinstatement was only in lieu of Section 17(b) of the Act and, therefore, the appellant cannot be permitted to get any benefit of such reinstatement.

¶51

6.1 While relying upon the following decisions of the Apex Court, Mr.Bhavesh Trivedi, learned advocate for the respondent has prayed to dismiss the present appeal.

¶52

In the case of Oshiar Prasad and others Vs. Employers in relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, (2015) 4 SCC 71 ;

¶53

In the case of Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Khare and another, (2016) 1 SCC 521 ;

¶54

In the case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and

¶55

Page 6 of 16

¶56

C/LPA/735/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶57

Others Vs. Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha and Another, (2014) 16 SCC 130 ;

¶58

In the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and Another Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136 ;

¶59

In the case of Oshiar Prasad and others (supra), the Apex Court has held and observed in paras-28 and 29 as under:-

¶60

28. Apart from this infirmity noticed in this case, we have also not been able to find any parity in the facts of the earlier reference (R.C. No. 58/81) and the case in hand. As noted above, the earlier reference was made to decide the absorption of 39 workers in the BCCL. This could be made because they were in the service. So far as the present case is concerned, the appellants were not in service.

¶61

29. It can safely be noted that merely because the workers in both the references were working in one project by itself was not enough to give them any right to claim parity with the claim of others. So long as, the parity was not proved on all the relevant issues arising in the case, no worker whether individual or collectively was entitled to claim the relief only on the basis of similarity in the status qua employer.

¶62

7.1 In the case of Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (supra), the Apex Court has held and observed in para-18 as under:-

¶63

18. In considering the violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in Incharge Officer and Anr. v. Shankar Shetty (2010) 9 SCC 126 and after referring to the various decisions, this Court held that the relief by way of back wages is not automatic and compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the endsof justice and it reads as under: (SCC pp. 127-28, paras 2-4)

¶64

Page 7 of 16

¶65

C/LPA/735/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶66

"2. Should an order of reinstatement automatically follow in a case where the engagement of a daily wager has been brought to end in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the ID Act")? The course of the decisions of this Court in recent years has been uniform on the above question.

¶67

3. In Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, delivering the judgment of this Court, one of us (R.M. Lodha, J.) noticed some of the recent decisions of this Court, namely, U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn.v. M.C. Joshi; State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma; M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban; Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute; Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai; GDA v. Ashok Kumar and Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and stated as follows: (Jagbir Singh case, SCC pp. 330 and 335, paras 7 and 14)

¶68

"7. It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.

¶69

* * *

¶70

14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee."

¶71

Page 8 of 16

¶72

C/LPA/735/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶73

4. Jagbir Singh has been applied very recently in Telegraph Deptt. v. Santosh Kumar Seal, wherein this Court stated: (SCC p. 777, para 11)

¶74

"11. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monetary compensation would sub serve the ends of justice."

¶75

7.2 In the case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and Others (supra), the Apex Court has held and observed in paras-9 to 14 as under:-

¶76

The only question that remains to be examined in the above backdrop is whether reinstatement of the respondent as a Conductor is imperative at this late stage. We say so because the appellant claims to have worked for a period of just about 18 months that too nearly three decades ago. The respondent today may be past fifty if not more. The Transport Department where he was working appears to have been wound up and transport work out sourced. That apart, this Court has in a series of decisions held that the illegality in an order of termination on account of non-payment of retrenchment compensation does not necessarily result in the reinstatement of the workman in service. This Court has, in cases where such termination is found to be illegal, directed compensation in lieu of reinstatement. We may at this stage refer to some of those decisions:

¶77

In Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, this Court held that since the appellant had worked only for a short period, interest of justice would be sub-served if the direction for reinstatement was modified and compensatory payment of Rs.50,000/- in lieu thereof directed to be substituted. Similarly in Sita Ram and Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, this Court took into consideration the period during which the services were rendered by the workman and instead of reinstatement directed a lump sum payment of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu thereof.

¶78

In GDA v. Ashok Kumar, this Court made a similar order as is evident from the following passage:

¶79

"21. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the

¶80

Page 9 of 16

¶81

C/LPA/735/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶82

appellant should be directed to pay compensation to the first respondent instead and in place of the relief of reinstatement in service.

¶83

Keeping in view the fact that the respondent worked for about six years as also the amount of daily wages which he had been getting, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the first respondent." [emphasis supplied]

¶84

To the same effect is decision of this Court in Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board where this Court held that while awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement host of factors should be kept in mind. The Court said: (SCC p. 335, paras 17-18)

¶85

“17. While awarding compensation, the host of factors, inter alia, manner and method of appointment, nature of employment and length of service are relevant. Of course, each case will depend upon its own facts and circumstances.

¶86

In a case such as this where the total length of service rendered by the appellant was short and intermittent from September 1, 1995 to July 18, 1996 and that he was engaged as a daily wager, in our considered view, a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Appellant by Respondent No. 1 shall meet the ends of justice. " [emphasis supplied]

¶87

Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and Ors., where this Court referred to the previous decisions on the subject to declare that even when a retrenchment order passed in violation of Section 25-F may be set aside, reinstatement need not necessarily follow as a matter of Court. The following passage from the decision is apposite: (SCC p.777, para 10)

¶88

…. ‘14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This

¶89

Page 10 of 16

¶90

C/LPA/735/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶91

Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee." [emphasis supplied]

¶92

To the same effect is the decision of this Court in In charge Officer and Anr. v. Shankar Shetty, where this Court said: (SCC p. 129, para 7)

¶93

"7. We think that if the principles stated in Jagbir Singh and the decisions of this Court referred to therein are kept in mind, it will be found that the High Court erred in granting relief of reinstatement to the respondent. The respondent was engaged as daily wager in 1978 and his engagement continued for about 7 years intermittently up to September 6, 1985 i.e. about 25 years back. In a case such as the present one, it appears to us that relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice. In our considered opinion, the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable." (emphasis supplied)

¶94

7.3 In the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan

¶95

Development Corporation and Another (supra), the Apex Court has held and observed in paras-22 and 29 as under:-

¶96

22. From the long line of cases indicated above, it can be said without any fear of contradiction that this Court has not held as an absolute proposition that in cases of wrongful dismissal, the dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in all situations. It has always been the view of this Court that there could be circumstance(s) in a case which may make it inexpedient to order reinstatement. Therefore, the normal rule that dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in cases of wrongful dismissal has been held to be not without exception. Insofar as wrongful termination of daily-rated workers is concerned, this Court has laid down that consequential relief would depend on host of factors, namely, manner and method of appointment, nature of employment and length of service. Where the length of engagement as daily wager has not been long, award of reinstatement should not follow and rather compensation should be directed to be paid. A distinction has been drawn between a daily wager and an employee holding the regular post for the purposes of consequential

¶97

Page 11 of 16

¶98

C/LPA/735/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶99

relief.

¶100

29. In light of the above legal position and having regard to the facts of the present case, namely, the workman was engaged as daily wager on 01.03.1991 and he worked hardly for eight months from 01.03.1991 to 31.10.1991, in our view, the Labour Court failed to exercise its judicial discretion appropriately. The judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court suffers from serious infirmity. The Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court also erred in not considering the above aspect at all. The award dated 28.06.2001 directing reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and 25% back wages in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained and has to be set aside and is set aside. In our view, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- by the appellant to the respondent shall meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made to the respondent within six weeks from today failing which the same will carry interest @ 9 per cent per annum.

¶101

On examination of the materials, certain admitted facts emerge from the record, which are as under:

¶102

(a) The appellant – workman has worked as a Naka Clerk on the fixed salary of Rs.850/- per month and served from 05.04.1989 to 27.12.1990.

¶103

(b) The appellant came to be discharged from the services w.e.f. 27.12.1990.

¶104

(c) The appellant has filed Reference (LCR) No.650 of 1991. Initially, Reference of the appellant – workman was rejected by the Labour Court. Therefore, he has filed Special Civil Application No.7714 of 2001, wherein, this Court on 02.12.2005 set aside the order of the Labour Court and the matter was remanded back to the Labour Court for fresh consideration on the fact that the other References were allowed on the similar facts.

¶105

Page 12 of 16

¶106

C/LPA/735/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶107

(d) Thereafter, the Labour Court has passed the order on 17.04.2006 declaring the action of the respondent in discharging the workman from services from 27.12.1990 as illegal and set aside and directed the respondent to reinstate the workman to his original post with continuity of service within one month.

¶108

(e) Against this order, the captioned petition being Special Civil Application No. 21932 of 2006 was filed by the respondent which came to be partly allowed by the learned Single Judge by modifying the order of reinstatement and lump sum amount of Rs.30,000/- was directed to be paid to the workman.

¶109

(f) The workman filed Misc. Civil Application No.803 of 2014 for review of the order which came to be dismissed on 07.04.2014. During the pendency of the petition, the appellant was reinstated in lieu of Section 17(b) of the Act.

¶110

Considering the materials placed on record, it appears that learned Single Judge has modified the order of the Labour Court on two counts; one is regarding short span of working period and passing the order after a period of 16 years of retrenchment and the other premise is regarding the facts that the workman was serving as daily wager in fixed term as Naka Clerk, which post is abolished in view of the abolition in the cadre of the State, no such post is in existence.

¶111

It clearly transpires from the evidence on record that the Labour Court has taken into consideration the fact that the workman has completed 630 days continuously and the respondent had taken different types of work from him and the respondent has retrenched the appellant on 27.12.1990. It also appears from the record that on the basis of the material on record, the Labour Court has believed

¶112

Page 13 of 16

¶113

C/LPA/735/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶114

that the workman has continuously served 630 days. The Labour Court has also observed that the work, which was done by the workman, was of a permanent nature and held that the workman had served continuously 240 days and he was discharged from the service by the respondent from 27.12.1990 without paying him any notice pay and expenses. It is further observed by the Labour Court that even at the time of new recruitment, the workman was not recalled and thus, the action of the respondent was violative of 25F, H of the Act and the workman deserves to be reinstated with continuity of service.

¶115

At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the workman – appellant has filed additional affidavit narrating the following facts in para-2.

¶116

I say that similarly situation co-employees (clerk) have been reinstated in service and the same is confirmed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court. The details of such coemployees (clerk) is stated herein below in the chart from, for the ready reference of this Hon’ble Court:-

¶117

Sr. Name Ref.N Order of S.C.A.
No o. Labour
. Court
1 Chandrakan 389/9 28.9.200 5974/200
t Vrujlal 1 0 4 dated
Vyas *reinstate 29.11.201
ment on 2
original
post with
continuit
y of
service
2 Prakash H. 390/9 “ “ “ “
Gida 1
3 Jitendra R. 653/9 “ “ “ “
Vyas 1
4 Prakash 651/9 15.6.200 23086/20
Kantilal 1 6 16 dated
Parmar *reinstate 21.12.201
ment on 6
original

¶118

Page 14 of 16

¶119

C/LPA/735/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶120

post with continuit y of service

¶121

Copy of the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in Special Civil Application NO.5974 of 2004 and Special Civil Application No.23086 of 2006 confirming the order of Labour Court reinstating the similarly situated co-employees on original post with continuity of service are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A1 Colly.

¶122

The above version of the appellant has not been denied by respondent. Of course the stand of the respondent is that they are not similar situated persons and those persons were continuously serving with the respondent. However, on perusal of the entire materials on record, it clearly transpires that the other workers who have been given benefit of continuation of service were working on the same post of Naka Clerk and all of them have filed References before the Labour Court, out of which only the present appellant’s Reference came to be rejected by the Labour Court which was remanded back to the Labour Court by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2005 passed in Special Civil Application No.7714 of 2001 and, thereafter, the Labour Court after carefully considering the evidence on record has passed the impugned order on 17.04.2006. The time passed in such litigation is due to adjudicatory system, for which no fault can be attributed to the appellant for such delay. The order of reinstatement though passed after more than 16 years is accepted, it is even in that case, the fact remains that the respondent has not followed the mandatory provisions of the Act before retrenching him and has also not called him for interview when other were employed and, thereafter, has also committed the breach of Section 25F, H of the Act.

¶123

It is also appears from the evidence on record that similar situated persons have been assigned duties in other respective departments of the Nagarpalika. The present appellant is one of

¶124

Page 15 of 16

¶125

C/LPA/735/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

¶126

such similar situated person. As such, he cannot be denied the benefit of reinstatement and continuation of service. Of course, he has not been granted any back wages as held by the Labour Court that during the interregnum period, he was earning by doing some casual work and by driving rickshaw and, therefore, the workman has been gainfully employed during pendency of the case.

¶127

Considering the materials on record, it clearly appears that even while modifying the order of reinstatement and continuity of service, the Court has accepted the facts that the workman has been retrenched. Otherwise, no order of compensation would have been granted in favour of the workman. Thus, the fact remains that the workman was retrenched without any notice or notice pay and there was breach of provisions of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge warrants interference and the same is required to be set aside and the order of the Labour Court is to be restored.

¶128

In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 21.01.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No.21932 of 2006 and the order dated 21.03.2014 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.803 of 2014 are hereby quashed and set aside. The impugned judgment and award dated 17.04.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No.650 of 1991 is hereby restored. The respondent is directed to comply with the directions issued by the Labour Court within a period of three months from today. No order as to costs.

¶129

Sd/(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J)

¶130

Sd/(A. P. THAKER, J)

¶131

V.R. PANCHAL

¶132

Page 16 of 16

Yogesh Vallabhdas Kelaiya v. Jetpur Navagadh Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Vallabhdas Kelaiya v. Jetpur Navagadh Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alpesh S/O Mahendrakumar Jayswal Vs the Director General O/O D.G.

Vinodbhai Bhagubhai Chauhan Vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

Nikulbhai Ambalal Patel Vs Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University

New Amtura Park Co. Operative Housing Society Vs District Registrar

Pawan Kumar S/O Uma Shanker Prasad Vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd.

Pradeepkumar S/O Ramnagina Rai Vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd.