IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5984 of 2020 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No No ==========================================================

ASHWINBHAI MANJI GAMIT Versus DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR BHUSHAN B OZA(1072) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 03/12/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the impugned award dated 11.01.2019 in Reference (T) No. 232 of 2006 passed by the Labour Court, Surat, whereby the Labour Court has partly allowed the reference and awarded Rs.65,000/- in lieu of reinstatement in service.

2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was working, as Ward Boy with the Primary Health Centre, Vaskui, Ta.Bardoli, District Surat since 1998. He was being paid salary of Rs.1170/- per month. He worked for more than 8 years however no salary slip was being issued to him. The respondent No.1 had issued appointment letter to the petitioner while employing him. However, suddenly vide oral order dated 31.3.2006 petitioner came to be removed from service upon the resolution received by the respondent from the finance department being ECR/1094/425/CH whereby the government has restricted the appointment of the employee for temporary or adhoc and decided to take the work from the outsource agency. Being aggrieved with the said termination, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Surat being Reference (T) No.232 of 2006. The labour Court partly allowed the said reference vide judgment and award dated 4.11.2015.

2.1 Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 4.11.2015 passed by the labour Court, Surat in Reference (T) No. 232 of 2006 the petitioner had preferred SCA No.5709 of 2017 and allied petitions before this Court and this Court vide judgment dated 21.11.2017 disposed of the said petition and remanded the matter back to the Labour Court, Surat to decide it afresh. Thereafter, the reference was reheard afresh by the labour Court, Surat and labour Court, Surat partly allowed the said reference and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.65,000/- in lieu of order for reinstatement.

3. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the again the petitioner has preferred present petition.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

5. Mr. Oza, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has submitted that though the government resolution dated 10.02.2006 directing to stop recruitment of part-time employee was sent to respondent No.1 on 13.04.2006, the petitioner was terminated from service on 31.03.2006 and the labour Court has committed error in not directing the reinstatement in service with full backwages. He has submitted that the labour Court after holding that the petitioner was removed from service illegally and in violation of Section25(oo) and Section 25(F) of I.D. Act has committed error in not passing order of reinstatement in service with continuity of service. Over-and-above, the grounds enumerated in the memo of petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is illegal, unjust and improper and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.

6. On the other hand, Ms.Mandavia, learned counsel for the respondents has objected the petition and submitted that the Labour Court ha