Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :H.K.RATHOD
PRATIKSHABEN B.UTRANKAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 2263 of 1999
Decided On : 08/28/2003
Indusrtial Act -Petitioners were appointed in the post of Clerk and they remained in service upto 1984 and thereafter, their services were terminated by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioners had challenged the termination order passed before the labour court being Reference No. 269 / 1987, wherein the labour court has passed the award granting reinstatement to the petitioners to the original post without backwages of the interim period. Said award was challenged by the respondent being Special Civil Application No. 7567 / 1992 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court has passed the order rejecting the petition filed by the respondent, meaning thereby, award passed by the labour court has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. In pursuance thereof, ultimately, one office order No. 156 / 1993 has been issued by the respondent by order wherein reinstatement order to the respective post of the petitioners has been issued in the scale of Rs. 950-1500, meaning thereby, that award passed by the Labour Court has been fully implemented by the respondent. Thereafter, one notice received by the petitioners from the respondent wherein it is mentioned that their services will be terminated with effect, meaning thereby, one month notice in advance was given to the petitioners by the respondent. Said notice was challenged by the petitioners before this Court being Special Civil Application No. 3099 / 1994 wherein this Court has directed the petitioners to make a detailed representation on the basis of the statement made by the learned advocate of the petitioners and the learned AGP Mr. Solanki who appeared on behalf of the respondent who submitted that the respondent will consider in light of the resolution which applied to the category of the petitioners. In view of this, the petition was withdrawn by the petitioners with clarification that in case of decision if ultimately against the petitioners, that can be challenged by the petitioners and during this interim period, the petitioners will be allowed to work in their present position until such representation so decided –Held above observations made by the respondent in para-20 of the reply to the effect that with effect, service benefits like HRA, CLA, Bonus, Medical Allowance and others are being paid by the respondent to the petitioners. Therefore, there is no need for this Court to issue any further direction as to these services benefits but even otherwise, this Court inclines to keep such rights of the petitioners open and they can claim, if they are so advised under the law, to file appropriate proceedings against the respondent for claiming said service benefits with retrospective effect if the same were not paid from the date of appointment by resorting and filing appropriate proceedings available to the petitioner under the law. IN view of above discussion, present petition succeeds to this extent and the same is partly allowed accordingly with direction to the respondent to treat services of the petitioners continuous with effect from date of joining in service and accordingly, it is further directed to the respondents to give them seniority on the basis of continuity of the service and shall also grant them whatever service benefits which are available under the service rules and Government Resolution available to the petitioners, within three months from the date of receiving the copy of this order. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above with no order as to costs –Petition is Allowed.
( 1 ) HEARD learned advocate Mr. J. A. Adeshra on behalf of the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. N. D. Gohil for respondent - State Authority.
( 2 ) THE brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :the petitioners were appointed in the post of Clerk in the year 1981 and they remained in service upto 1984 and thereafter, their services were terminated by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioners had challenged the termination order passed in the year 1984 before the labour court, Kalol being Reference No. 269 / 1987, wherein the labour court has passed the award on 13th March, 1992 granting reinstatement to the petitioners to the original post without backwages of the interim period. Said award was challenged by the respondent being Special Civil Application No. 7567 / 1992 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court has passed the order on 21st October, 1992 rejecting the petition filed by the respondent, meaning thereby, award passed by the labour court has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. In pursuance thereof, ultimately, one office order No. 156 / 1993 has been issued by the respondent by order dated 31st March, 1993 wherein reinstatement order to the respective post of the petitioners has been issued in the scale of Rs. 950-1500, meaning thereby, that award passed by the Labour Court on 13th March, 1992 has been fully implemented by the respondent. Thereafter, one notice dated 20th November, 1993 received by the petitioners from the respondent wherein it is mentioned that their services will be terminated with effect from 20th December, 1993, meaning thereby, one month notice in advance was given to the petitioners by the respondent. Said notice was challenged by the petitioners before this Court being Special Civil Application No. 3099 / 1994 wherein this Court has directed the petitioners to make a detailed representation on the basis of the statement made by the learned advocate of the petitioners and the learned AGP Mr. Solanki who appeared on behalf of the respondent who submitted that the respondent will consider in light of the resolution which applied to the category of the petitioners. In view of this, the petition was withdrawn by the petitioners with clarification that in case of decision if ultimately against the petitioners, that can be challenged by the petitioners and during this interim period, the petitioners will be allowed to work in their present position until such representation so decided. This was clear direction issued by this Court on 16th September, 1994. In pursuance of this, services of the petitioners were not terminated but they remained in service upto 11th August, 1995 and then one letter was received by the petitioners from the respondent to terminate services of the petitioners with effect from 11th August, 1995. Against that, the petitioners had approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mehsana being NO. IDR / 540, 541, 578 / 674 dated 27th December, 1995. Thereon the Conciliation Officer - Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mehsana by order dated 27th December, 1995 recommended to the respondent to reinstate the petitioners in service to the original post in which they were working. This recommendation and opinion of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour has been implemented by the respondent by office order No. 336 / 95 dated 30th December, 1995 and in pursuance of that, the petitioners were reinstated on 2nd January, 1996 by the respondent and from that date onwards, the petitioners are in service and working with the respondent.
( 3 ) AGAINST the present petition, affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondent and a copy of thereof served on the petitioner which is taken on record.
( 4 ) IN light of this background and facts, the petitioners have two grievances. Firstly, the grievance is that though the petitioners remained in service continuously with effect from 1981, service benefits which
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
