Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
N.V.ANJARIA, NIRAL R. MEHTA, JJ.
Rajeshbhai Khodabhai Rathod – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 96 of 2023 In R/Special Civil Application No. 15210 of 2019
Decided on : 13-02-2023
Labour Court - Continuity of Service - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25B - Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, Special Civil Application, Letters Patent Appeal - [Labour Court] - [Continuity of Service] - [Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25B, Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988] - The court discussed the interpretation of 'continuous service' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the entitlement to benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It emphasized that when the Labour Court grants continuity of service, the benefits arising from the Resolution should be available as a necessary corollary. The court also highlighted that the employer cannot deny continuity of service when it was granted by the lower court and confirmed by the higher courts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were daily wagers, sought to set aside an order and requested the authorities to reckon their earlier services, grant benefits of a Government Resolution, and prepare their service book and General Provident Fund Account.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Labour Court had granted continuity of service to the petitioners, and the benefits arising from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 should be available to them. It also noted that the employer cannot deny continuity of service when it was granted by the lower court and confirmed by the higher courts.
Issues: The issues involved the denial of continuity of service and benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when the Labour Court grants continuity of service, the benefits arising from the Resolution should be available as a necessary corollary. It also emphasized that the employer cannot deny continuity of service when it was granted by the lower court and confirmed by the higher courts.
Final Decision: The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge were set aside, and the respondent was directed to reckon the services of the petitioners as continuous and grant all benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to both the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
N.V.ANJARIA, J.
Heard learned advocate Mr. MTM Hakim for the appellant and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta for the respondents.
2. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants-original petitioners is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.06.2022 of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the Special Civil Application filed by the petitioners.
2.1 In the Special Civil Application, the two petitioners prayed to set aside order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the Executive Engineer, respondent no.2 herein. It was further prayed to direct the respondent authorities to reckon the earlier services rendered by the petitioners, to further grant on that basis benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It was also prayed for against the respondents to prepare the service book and open the General Provident Fund Account of the petitioners.
3. Both the petitioners were employed under respondent no.2 Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division as daily wagers. Petitioner no.1 was appointed in January 1992 and worked continuously upto March 1999. As far as petitioner no.2 was concerned, he was initially appointed as daily wager in the year 1984 and worked upto March 1999.
3.1 It appears that as the services of the petitioners were terminated, they had an occasion to raise industrial dispute by approaching Labour Court. The Labour Court entertained the Reference (LCR) Nos. 200 of 2005 and 201 of 2005 directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners on their original posts with continuity of service with 40 days backwages.
3.2 The respondents challenged the aforesaid judgment and award by filing before this Court Special Civil Application Nos.14231 of 2008 and 14233 of 2009 respectively, which petitions came to be dismissed on 09.01.2023 and 04.02.2023 respectively. In view of the dismissal of the petitions, the petitioners were taken back in service and upon reinstatement, they resumed their duties with effect from 01.05.2015.
3.3 It is the undisputed case of the petitioners that since then the petitioners have worked continuously and uninterruptedly. The case of the petitioners has been that the Labour Court while delivering the judgment and award, when granted the continuity of service to the petitioners, the length of service of the petitioners from the date of their initially joining were to be calculated and reckoned accordingly.
3.4 It is the case that the petitioners are required to be treated to be in service continuously for all these years as per the judgment and award of the Labour Court. It was the case that in several such cases, identical to the petitioners, this Court directed the respondents to grant benefit of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and all consequential benefits flowing therefrom. The petitioners referred to the decision in Kasambhai M. Ajmeri Vs. District Development Officer & Ors. being Special Civil Application No. 7588 of 2004 decided on 12.11.2014 as also in Paresh Chelshankar Vyas vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. being Special Civil Application No. 7529 of 2018 decided as per judgment and order dated 12.07.2019 and other decision on the same lines.
3.5 It has been the grievance that the order of reinstatement dated 22.12.2014 was passed but continuity of service was not granted.
3.6 After the decisions of this Court dismissing the Special Civil Applications of the authorities as stated above, when the petitioners were reinstated by order dated 22.12.2014, but continuity was not granted in the said order, they had an occasion to file the Special Civil Application.
4. The learned Single Judge referred to decision of this Court in Prabhatbhai Narsangbhai Mudhwa vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No. 14661 of 2019 decided on 27.11.2019 as well as the decision in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Ashok Laxmanbhai Parmar rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1268 of 2017, wherein the Courts had considered the question of tr
When the Labour Court grants continuity of service, the benefits arising from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 should be available as a necessary corollary, and the employer cannot deny con....
If the Labour Court does not specifically deny continuity of service, the concerned worker is entitled to it.
The main legal point established is that the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 applies to extend benefits to those working on a daily wage basis, and continuity of service is crucial in determin....
Once the termination is set aside, the employee cannot be denied continuity of service once reinstatement is directed.
The entitlement to continuity of service and benefits as per the Labour Court's award and the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
Reinstatement inherently includes continuity of service, entitling the employee to benefits from the initial date of joining, despite a period of illegal termination.
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
