Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Vipul M. Pancholi, J.
Madan Ramsingh Rathod – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat & others – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 20183 of 2015
Decided On : 26-04-2022
Labour Dispute - Continuity of Service - Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 - [FACT OF THE CASE] The petitioner, a chokidar, was terminated and reinstated multiple times. The dispute revolved around the continuity of his service from 1985 and entitlement to benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found that the Labour Court had not specifically denied continuity of service, implying that the petitioner was entitled to continuity of service. [ISSUES] The main issue was the continuity of service and entitlement to benefits under the Government Resolution. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which held that if the Labour Court does not specifically deny continuity of service, the concerned worker is entitled to it. [FINAL DECISION] The petitioner was entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 by counting his services from 18.3.1985. The respondent was directed to provide the necessary benefits within 12 weeks.
ORDER :
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs :
(B) Be pleased to declare that the respondents have adopted unfair labour practice and the petitioner is required to be treated as permanent employee with all consequential benefits.
(C) Be pleased to direct the respondents to grant revised rates of pay to the petitioner, revised from time to time and grant all arrears of amount on the basis of the revised rate with 12% interest.
(D) Pending admission and final disposal of the petition, be pleased to direct the respondents to start paying salary to the petitioner as per the resolution dated 17.10.1988.
(E) Pending admission and final disposal of the petition, be pleased to direct the respondents to pay minimum of the scale of pay payable to Class-IV employees with permissible allowances forthwith to the petitioner.
(F) xxxxx”
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Pathak for the petitioner, learned advocate Ms.Dhruvi Desai with learned advocate Mr.Raval for respondent no.2-Panchayat.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Chokidar on 18.3.1985 and worked continuously till the date of his termination i.e. upto 1.9.1989. The services of the petitioner were terminated without following the procedure. The petitioner raised the industrial dispute which was referred to the concerned Labour Court and registered as Reference (LCK) No. 329 of 1990. The Labour Court, Kalol passed the award on 28.9.1994 and allowed the reference. The respondent no.2 was directed to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages. The respondent no.2, therefore, filed petition being Special Civil Application No.1815 of 1996 before this Court. This Court dismissed the said petition vide order dated 11.9.1996. It is submitted that the petitioner was thereafter reinstated and immediately his services were once again terminated. The petitioner once again raised the industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Kalol which was registered as Reference (LCK) No.490 of 1997. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence produced before it, passed the award dated 11.2.2002 and thereby directed the respondent no.2 to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages.
3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no.2 thereafter challenged the said award dated 11.2.2002 by filing Special Civil Application No.6673 of 2002. This Court, vide order dated 31.1.2006, partly allowed the said petition and thereby confirmed the award with regard to the granting of reinstatement, however, the order qua back wages is quashed and set aside. The respondent no.2, thereafter, filed Letters Patent Appeal No.1184 of 2006 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 19.7.2013, dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeal.
3.2 In the meantime, the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 15.3.2010 and the petitioner is working with the respondent no.2.
3.3 Learned advocate Mr.Pathak would further submit that the Labour Court has not specifically denied the continuity of service and therefore the respondent no.2 was required to consider the service of the petitioner from 1985 and ought to have granted the benefits as per Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 issu
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
