Reserved On : 29/01/2026 Pronounced On : 12/02/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 11 of 2026 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/18326/2021 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 11 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA ================================================================

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

JETPUR NAVAGADH MUNICIPALITY Versus PARESHKUMAR KANTILAL PARMAR ================================================================

Appearance:

MR BHAVESH P TRIVEDI(2731) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR RR TRIVEDI(941) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 JEET Y RAJYAGURU(8039) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Bhavesh P. Trivedi appearing with learned advocate Mr.R.R. Trivedi for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.Jeet Y. Rajyaguru appearing for the respondent on advance copy.

2. The present appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 by the appellant–original petitioner against the Order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.18326 of 2021, whereby the petition came to be dismissed and the Award dated 15.11.2019 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (I.T.)

No.94 of 2008 came to be confirmed.

3. The factual matrix of the present appeal are that the respondent–original petitioner was engaged as a daily wager with Jetpur Nagarpalika since 05.04.1989 as an octroi clerk and was paid wages as per the minimum wages. It is the case of the respondent that despite existence of a sanctioned permanent post in the same establishment, which remained vacant for a long period, the respondent continued to work on a daily-wage basis. Thereafter, with effect from 27.12.1990, the respondent was engaged as a monthly wager. Thereafter, the respondent–original workman came to be illegally terminated from service on 31.12.1990.

4. Being aggrieved by the said termination, the respondent raised Industrial Dispute and Reference (L.C.R.) No. 651 of 1991 which came to be adjudicated by the learned Labour Court by order dated 17.04.2006, directing reinstatement of the respondent–workman on his original post. The said order was challenged by the appellant-Nagarpalika by filing Special Civil Application No.23086 of 2006 before this Court. Pursuant thereto, the respondent–workman was reinstated in service on 01.05.2007 and continued to work in the Tax Department of the Nagarpalika.

4.1. Subsequently, by order dated 29.06.2007 in Special Civil Application No.23086 of 2006, while the direction granting continuity of service was set aside, the direction of reinstatement was confirmed, as the respondent had already been reinstated with effect from 01.05.2007.

Thereafter, the respondent–workman requested the appellant-Nagarpalika to place him on a permanent post and to grant salary and benefits accordingly. It is the case of the respondent that he had worked for more than 240 days in each year and yet was not extended the benefits of leave, overtime, or other service benefits. Consequently, he raised another Industrial Dispute for regularization by filing Reference (I.T.) No.94 of 2008 before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot. The learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, by Judgment and Award dated 15.11.2019, partly allowed the reference and directed the appellant-Nagarpalika to grant the benefit of permanency to the respondent–workman with effect from 01.01.2010 till the date of the Award for notional purposes and further directed payment of monetary benefits from the date of the Award within a period of 30 days.

4.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by