C/SCA/13235/2020 JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13235 of 2020

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE

Sd/-

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

1

Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed

to see the judgment ?

Yes

2

To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

No

3

Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy

of the judgment ?

No

4

Whether this case involves a substantial question

of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution

of India or any order made thereunder ?

No

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

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

Versus

JUMABHAI UMARBHAI GUNGA

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

Appearance:

MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

NIYATI D CHAUHAN(9082) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE

Date : 01/03/2021

ORAL JUDGMENT

1.

Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Niyati D. Chauhan,

learned advocate waives service of rule for the respondent.

Page 1 of 11

C/SCA/13235/2020 JUDGMENT

2.

Heard Mr. Hamesh C. Naidu, learned advocate for the

petitioner and Ms. Niyati D. Chauhan, learned advocate for

the respondent. With consent of learned advocates

appearing for either side, the petition is taken up for final

disposal today as the issue involve lies in a narrow

compass.

3.

In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order

dated 17.1.2020 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot

in Reference (I.T.) No. 48 of 2018.

4.

The facts giving rise to present petition as could be

gathered from the memo of the petition and connected

material are that the respondent was working as driver with

the petitioner corporation. He remained absent

unauthorizedly from 14.1.1997 to 14.5.1998 without prior

permission or intimation. The respondent was therefore,

chargesheeted on 15.9.1998 and after conducting

departmental inquiry, he came to be dismissed from service.

The respondent challenged dismissal order before the

Page 2 of 11

C/SCA/13235/2020 JUDGMENT

Labour Court, Rajkot by preferring Reference (L.C.R.) No.

156 of 2002. The said reference was partly allowed by award

dated 18.4.2007 and the petitioner was directed to reinstate

the respondent without consequential benefits or continuity

of service. The petitioner assailed said award by filing

Special Civil Application No. 27408 of 2007 and by order

dated 6.12.2012 the said petition was allowed and the order

of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court was confirmed

and penalty of stoppage of one increment without future

effect was imposed upon the respondent.

5.

Thereafter, by order dated 27.6.2013 the respondent

was reinstated in service and the notional pay fixation was

fixed accordingly. The respondent, after resuming service

upon reinstatement and fixation of notional pay, about 5

years thereafter, preferred Reference (I.T.) No. 48 of 2018

before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot claiming pay revision,

increment and pay grade for the period from 15.12.1993 to

18.4.2017. The Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot by impugned

order dated 17.1.2020 partially allowed the reference of the

respondent whereunder the petitioner was directed to

undertake the pay fixation of the respondent for the period

Page 3 of 11

C/SCA/13235/2020 JUDGMENT

from 15.12.1993 to 18.4.2017. Being a