Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.
Amarsinhbhai Kanjibhai Rathod – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Others – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 1177 Of 2022
Decided On : 04-01-2024
Labour Court - Termination of Service - Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 - [LCS No.83/2001, Special Civil Application No.17885/2007, Special Civil Application No.10343/2020, Special Civil Application No. 389 of 2020, Special Civil Application Nos.13095 of 2016 and 2192 of 2017, LPA No.1527 of 2019] - The court discussed the interpretation of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and its application to the reinstatement and continuity of service of the employees. The court relied on previous decisions and legal principles to determine that the employees were entitled to the benefits under the resolution, and their services should be treated as continuous from the date of initial appointment till the date of reinstatement, with notional benefits and pensionary benefits calculated and granted accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
The late wife of the petitioner and six other employees were terminated from service and had preferred a reference case before the Labour Court. The Labour Court directed the workmen to be reinstated without the benefit of backwages. The State challenged the award, but the petition was rejected. Subsequently, the respondent passed an order treating the employees as fresh appointees without considering their past service. The court discussed the interpretation of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and its application to the reinstatement and continuity of service of the employees.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the employees were entitled to the benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, and their services should be treated as continuous from the date of initial appointment till the date of reinstatement, with notional benefits and pensionary benefits calculated and granted accordingly.
Issues: The issues involved the reinstatement and continuity of service of the terminated employees, and the application of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to their case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous decisions and legal principles to determine that the employees were entitled to the benefits under the resolution, and their services should be treated as continuous from the date of initial appointment till the date of reinstatement, with notional benefits and pensionary benefits calculated and granted accordingly.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to confer and grant the benefits to the petitioner under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 by reckoning the services of the petitioner from the initial date of joining and depending upon the completion of requisite number of years to confer the corresponding benefits under the said resolution. The services of the petitioner shall be treated as continuous with effect from the initial date of joining till the date of reinstatement, and notional benefits and pensionary benefits would be calculated and granted for the period from the date of reinstatement onwards.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Nilesh Shah on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Ayaan Patel on behalf of the respondent – State.
2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent – State.
3. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate Mr.Shah, it would appear that the late wife of the present petitioner along with six other persons who were working as daily rated employees with the respondent no.3 had been terminated from service and had preferred a reference case before the learned Labour Court being Reference (LCS) No.83/2001. The learned Labour Court vide award dated 12.01.2007 had directed the workmen to be reinstated without the benefit of backwages.
3.1. It would appear that the said award had been challenged by the State before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.17885/2007 and whereas, the said petition had been rejected by this Court. It would appear that subsequently, the respondent no.3 passed an order dated 07.11.2012 treating the wife of the present petitioner and other workmen as fresh appointees without any reference to their past service from 1996 to 2007.
3.2. It would appear that one of the coworkers who was also a party before the learned Labour Court and in whose favour order dated 07.11.2012 had been passed, had approached this Court challenging the same and also for grant of other benefits under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It would appear that the learned Coordinate Bench vide order dated 15.09.2022 in Special Civil Application No.10343/2020 preferred by the co-employee referred to hereinabove, had directed the respondents to confer and grant benefit under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 by reckoning services of the petitioners therein from the date of initial appointment. The learned coordinate Bench had also directed the respondents to confer corresponding benefits upon completion of requisite number of years to the petitioner therein and whereas, the services of the petitioner was directed to be treated as continuous from the date of initial joining till the date of reinstatement and notional benefits and pensionary benefits would be calculated and granted from the period of reinstatement onwards.
4. Learned AGP Mr.Ayaan Patel would not be able to submit as to the said order being set aside by the superior Court.
5. Having regard to the same, the relevant observations of order dated 15.09.2022 rendered in Special Civil Application No.10343/2020 are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:-
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a daily wager since 1976. His services were terminated with effect from 01.01.1988. That was a subject matter of challenge before the Labour Court by way of Reference (LCS) No. 83 of 2001. The Labour Court by an award dated 12.01.2007 reinstated the petitioner without expressly stating that it was with continuity of service. The petitioner was reinstated on 06.10.2008. By an order dated 07.11.2012, the petitioner was treated as a fresh appointee from 29.08.2007 and his past service from 1996 to 2007 was not considered when he retired in 2018.
4. Mr. Nilesh M Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner would also rely on an order passed by this court in Special Civil Application No. 389 of 2020 on 14.02.2022.
5. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned AGP would submit that the petition is grossly belated inasmuch the order of 07.11.2012 was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner and the petitioner has filed this petition 7 years thereafter.
6. Considering the decision of this court in Special Civil Application No. 389 of 2020 dated 14.02.2022 wherein this court has held as under, the petition deserves to be al
Reinstatement inherently includes continuity of service, entitling the employee to benefits from the initial date of joining, despite a period of illegal termination.
Point of law: Once the issue, as ordered while setting aside the termination, has ordered of reinstatement, the continuity of service cannot be denied and the case of is of not fresh appointment, but....
Continuity of service is inherent in reinstatement, entitling the petitioner to benefits from the initial date of joining despite the illegal termination.
Once the termination is set aside, the employee cannot be denied continuity of service once reinstatement is directed.
Reinstatement of employees following illegal termination entails continuity of service, allowing for benefits under applicable government resolutions from the initial date of joining.
Reinstatement of a worker inherently includes continuity of service, entitling them to benefits from the initial date of joining.
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
