IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 555 of 2019 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/5014/2008 ==========================================================

SAMIR S PADHIYAR Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR DG SHUKLA(1998) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA Date : 18/03/2026

JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

1.The workman approached the Labour Court, contending that he had been engaged by the Gujarat Electricity Board (now known as the Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited) and that his services came to be terminated without any notice w.e.f. 01.04.2000.

2.The Labour Court, on consideration of the material placed before it, came to the conclusion that the workman was terminated unlawfully and, it could therefore, not be sustained. Accordingly, the Labour Court passed an award directing reinstatement. It did not however award backwages, but it did grant with continuity of service.

3.Being aggrieved by this award of reinstatement with continuity of service, the Board approached this Court.

4.The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, has passed an elaborate order and has set aside the order of the Tribunal and has proceeded to allow the petition.

5.During the course of his order, the learned Single Judge has noticed that the workman had, basically, submitted a quotation for discharging supervisory work in respect of certain civil works and, therefore, he could not claim that he was a "workman".

6.Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that this reasoning of the learned Single Judge cannot be accepted, since, the modus operandi adopted by the Board was a means to camouflage the relationship of employer and employee. He contended that this system of calling for quotations and awarding work for 06 months was, in effect, an engagement of the workman’s services and, therefore, the Labour Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that his services had been terminated unlawfully and he deserved to be reinstated.

7.Learned Counsel for the workman pointed out the internal communication dated 13.06.1998, in fact, established beyond doubt that the Board had engaged the services of the workman.

8.It would be beneficial to reproduce the entire letter:

“Sub. :- Approval for placing the W/O for supervision of Civil works for Amreli Const. Division.

With reference to the above, please find enclosed herewith proposal for supervision of Civil works which are going on in 400KVA and Sarambhada as proposed by D.E.

Civil S/D. Amreli.

As you know we are having vacancy of Civil Mistry at Amreli S/D and Nos of works are going on which under the control of this division particularly for 400KVs S/s Amreli the field is very vast and spreaded. One or two J.E. can not constly supervise the works. As such we have invited the quotations from Civil Engr. who can give their services as supervisor for works at Amreli and Sarambhada Village. Shri Samir S. Padiyar has quoted the lowest rates and found suitable for our works. All Papers are sent here with for your decision and giving approval for the same.

You are requested to please approve the same as per delegation of power clause No. 4(a)(II) of GSO-

311/18-3-98.”

9.As could be seen from the said letter, the view of the department was that junior engineers could not constantly supervise the work and, as such, it was necessary to invite quotations from civil engineers who could supervise the works at Amreli and Sarambhada village. This communication clearly indicates that a quotation was called for to engage persons to supervise certain works at Amreli and Sarambhada village. If, the entire intention of the Board was to call for quotations and engage