IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 237 of 2026 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/13158/2017 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 237 of 2026 ==========================================================

ABDOOLBHAI RASOOLBHAI PATHAN Versus AMRELI DISTRICT PANCHAYAT & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR.VINOD C THAKER(6678) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA Date : 02/04/2026

JUDGMENT

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

1. The petitioner was appointed as a part time peon on

05.03.1983 to work for the period of four hours a day at Allopathic Dispensary, Dedan. His services came to be terminated on 01.01.1990, as a result of which, he raised an industrial dispute with the Labour Court. The Labour Court accepted the reference and passed an award on 23.12.1999, whereby, it directed his reinstatement to the original post with continuity of service and 25% back-

wages.

2. The Management, being aggrieved, approached this Court by way of SCA No.4136 of 2000, but this petition was dismissed on 23.02.2005 and as a consequence the workman, i.e the appellant was reinstated to his original post.

3. The workman, thereafter, approached this Court once again in SCA No.28889 of 2007 seeking for relief of regularization and also for minimum wages be paid to him by the management as prescribed for a part time employee.

4. It may be relevant to state here that in that writ petition, the petitioner urged during the course of his arguments, as follows:-

“She further submits that the petitioner is not getting minimum wages for part time employees as declared by the State Government.”

5. Furthermore, this Court, while disposing of the said writ petition, also made the following observations:

“6. In respect of the grievance of the petitioner about claim for minimum wages for part time employees as declared by the State Government, it is open for the petitioner to make detailed representation to the respondent District Panchayat, Amreli pointing out minimum wages declared by the State Government for part time employees. As and when such representation made by the petitioner is received by the District Panchayat, Amreli, it is directed to the District Panchayat, Amreli to verify whether the minimum wages declared for part time employees by the State Government is being paid to the petitioner or not and then to examine grievance of the petitioner and thereafter to pass appropriate reasoned orders in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to communicate the decision to the petitioner immediately thereafter.”

6. As could be seen from the observation of this Court as underline above and also as per the definite case of the workman that he was working as a part time employee and that he was required to be paid the minimum wages declared for part time employees, it is clear that all along, the workman claimed that he had been appointed as a part time employee and was required to be paid minimum wages that had been declared for part time employees.

7. The workman, thereafter, approached this Court once again and sought for extension of the benefits under the Government Resolution (GR) dated 17.10.1988, considering the length of his service.

8. The Learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, has refused this claim, principally on the ground that the workman was only a part time employee and the benefit of GR dated 17.10.1988 cannot be extended to, as the said GR would be applicable only for a full time daily wager.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that though the workman was given the nomenclature of a part time employee, in reality, work was extracted from him for the entire day, and he was, therefo