##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/680/2008 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026

0.6976252254051456

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 680 of 2008

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

GUJARAT STATE WATER SUPPLY ANDSEWERAGE BOARD, PUBLIC HEALTH & ANR.

Versus DANJIBHAI AMARBHAI RATHOD

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

Appearance:

MS NAYNABEN K GADHVI(2907) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

Date : 25/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Today, when the matter is called out for hearing, none appears on behalf of the petitioners.

2. It is pertinent to mention that earlier the present writ petition came to be dismissed twice for non prosecution due to absence of learned advocate for the petitioners and was also restored twice. In view thereof, the present matter is being proceeded with on merits in absence of the learned

advocate for the petitioners.

3. By the present writ petition, the petitioners impugn the award dated 10.08.2007 in Reference (LCA) No. 82 of 2001 passed by the learned Labour Court, Amreli, whereby the termination of the respondent-workman has been held to be

Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Apr 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 05 19:27:14 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/680/2008 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026

0.6976252254051456

illegal and it was further directed that the petitioners reinstate the respondent- workman with continuity in service on the original post with 10% back wages from 01.05.1996. The learned Labour Court has also awarded the cost of Rs.

1,500/- to the respondent- workman.

4. This Court vide order dated 01.07.2008 while issuing rule, had granted ad-interim relief to the petitioners subject to compliance of the provisions of Section 17-B of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘I.D. Act’).

5. It is specifically submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Yogen Pandya for the respondent- workman that neither the compliance of Section 17-B of the I.D. Act regarding payment of wages has been complied with till date nor the respondent – workman has been reinstated in service with

payment of 10% back wages.

6. It is averred in the present writ petition that respondent- workman was never appointed by the petitioner on permanent basis. The respondent – workman was a temporary labourer for a temporary period and he was being paid on daily basis. It is further averred that the respondent was called for work as and when the work was available. It is further stated that in absence of the respondent -workman

Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Apr 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 05 19:27:14 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/680/2008 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2026

0.6976252254051456

being in permanent service and the respondent being engaged as a temporary labourer, there was no question of

termination of service.

7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Pandya appearing on behalf of the respondent – workman submits that the respondent -workman came to be appointed as a daily wager on 03.11.1990 by the petitioners and thereafter he was working continuously till his oral termination on 08.08.1991. He submits that the respondent -workman was being paid minimum wages by way of salary. It is submitted that cogent evidence has been led before the learned Labour Court. The petitioners have also produced the attendance sheets in respect of the respondent - workman, wherein it has been revealed that respondent has worked for a period of 232 days without calculating weekly and public holidays. He further submits that based on the attendance sheets, which has been produced on record, the learned Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent -workman has worked continuously for 240 days and therefore, he is entitled for reinstatement. Learned advocate for the respondent further submits that it has also come