Allowed

Kamshibhai Raghabhai v. Chief Conservator of Forest

Gujarat HC12 Jul 2021LPA/762/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent Appeal concerns workmen who claimed retrenchment benefits denied due to the Forest Department not being classified as an 'Industry'. The High Court allowed the appeal, remanding the matter to the Labour Court to decide afresh applying relevant Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal is allowed; the orders of the Single Judge and the Labour Court are set aside to the extent they refused relief.

Kamshibhai Raghabhai Vs Chief Conservator of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

C/LPA/762/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2021 KAMSHIBHAI RAGHABHAI & 3 others v. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & Anr.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 762 of 2012 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7024 of 2011

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI and

¶6

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

¶7

===	======================================================	=========
1	Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	---
2	To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	---
3	Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	---
4	Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	---
===	====================================================== KAMSHIBHAI RAGHABHAI & 3 other(s) Versus CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & 1 other(s)	=========

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MS RINA KAMANI, Counsel for MR PH PATHAK, Counsel for the Appellant Nos.1, 2, 3, 4

¶11

MR SOAHAM JOSHI, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1,2

¶12

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

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶14

and

¶15

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

¶16

Date : 12/07/2021

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶18

(PER : HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI)

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

C/LPA/762/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2021 KAMSHIBHAI RAGHABHAI & 3 others v. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & Anr.

¶21

The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 04.07.2011 whereby the learned Single Judge (Coram: Ravi R. Tripathi, J.) dismissed the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 7024 of 2011 filed by the Petitioners Workmen.

¶22

The Appellants / Petitioners claimed benefit of retrenchment as their services were terminated without compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Though the learned Labour Court decided the said issue in their favour that they were working for 240 days in each year, but refused to grant relief on the ground that ‘ Forest Department ’ was not an ‘ Industry ’ within the meaning of Section 2(2)(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and they were not entitled to be reinstated on their original post by passing an Award dated 29.11.2010 by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 610 of 1998 – Chief Conservator of Forest vs. Kamshibhai Raghabhai & Others .

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

C/LPA/762/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2021 KAMSHIBHAI RAGHABHAI & 3 others v. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & Anr.

¶25

The learned Single Judge also dismissed the petition while referring to the Full Bench Decision of this Court in case of Gujarat Forest Producers, Gatherers & Forest Workers Union vs. State of Gujarat [2004 (2) GLR 1488] which was in favour of workmen. Though the Appellants were working as Daily Wagers / Watchmen , it appears that the learned Single Judge has unfortunately assumed them as doing same clerical work and that is why the learned Single Judge has not applied the case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa [(1978) 2 SCR 213] to this case.

¶26

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad treating the ‘ Forest Department ’ as an ‘ Industry ’ and the Labour Court will decide the case again in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Full Bench of this Court. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.07.2011 as well as the order of

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

C/LPA/762/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2021 KAMSHIBHAI RAGHABHAI & 3 others v. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & Anr.

¶29

the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad dated 29.11.2010 to the extent it refuses to grant relief to the workmen but maintaining the findings that they were working for more than 240 days in each year, we direct the learned Labour Court to decide the reference case afresh. In view of the long lapse of time, we direct the learned Labour Court to decide the reference case within six months. Without any further notice, the parties may appear in the Labour Court on the first instance on 02.08.2021, Monday at 11.00 a.m. Record & Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Labour Court, Ahmedabad immediately.

¶30

(DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J)

¶31

(B.N. KARIA, J)

¶32

Bharat

¶33

Page 4 of 4

Kamshibhai Raghabhai v. Chief Conservator of Forest

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamshibhai Raghabhai v. Chief Conservator of Forest

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

Deputy Director Directorate of Enforment Government of India Vs M/S. Biotor Industries Ltd.

Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement Government of India Vs M/S. Biotor Industries Ltd.

General Manager Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs Chavda Jitendrakumar Popatji

Vala Jaydeepsinh Naughanbhai Vs the State of Gujarat

State of Gujarat Vs Husainbhai Yakubbhai Maru

Chief Engineer (Construction) Vs Presiding Officer or Successor in Office