IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6211 of 2025 ================================================================

GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus DINESHBHAI JAGANNATHBHAI BHATT ================================================================

Appearance:

MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 ANURADHA G RATHOD(7717) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR GK RATHOD(2386) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 30/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the present petition is heard finally.

2. It is the case of the petitioner-Corporation that the respondent- workman was working as a daily wager at the civil site of divisional office at Amreli with effect from 1991 depending upon the availability of the work and funds. The service of the respondent- workman came to be terminated. On 15.07.2005, the respondent- workman raised a dispute being Reference No.2 of 2005, which came to be decided in his favour on 22.01.2009, whereby it was directed to reinstate the respondent-workman in service with continuity, but without any back-wages. Accordingly, the respondent-workman came to be reinstated in service. That thereafter, the respondent-workman has raised a demand for regularization of his services. By communication dated 29.03.2014, the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner, Rajkot made a reference to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar being Reference (IT)

No.31 of 2014. That by the impugned award dated 16.03.2024, the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar has granted regularization of services to the respondent-workman by directing that his services shall be regularized from 15.07.2005 and he will be entitled to get all the permanency benefits. Aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation submits the learned Tribunal has erred in not appreciating that the respondent was offered work as a daily wager at the civil site of the divisional office at Amreli with effect from 1991. He submits that there is no sanctioned post of daily wager at the civil site of Amreli division and therefore, in absence of such post, there is no question of regularizing the services of the respondent-workman herein in the cadre of Helper. He further submits that the respondent-workman was irregularly employed and therefore also, there could not be any regularization of his services and the same would amount to a back door entry in the service of the petitioner establishment. He further submits that the board of directors have passed the resolution No.7496 in the meeting dated 27.06.1991 with a mandate that no recruitment of daily wagers shall be made henceforth. He, therefore, submits that the respondent was only engaged as a daily wager on temporary and ad-hoc basis and therefore, the same has been overlooked by the learned Industrial Tribunal while granting the benefits of regularization. He submits that the evidence on record has not been properly appreciated and the impugned award is bad in law and it deserves to be set aside.

4. Per contra, Ms.Anuradha Rathod, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-workman submits that in the present case along with the respondent-workman several other workmen also came to be terminated illegally by the petitioner-Corporation. She submits that the said workmen had preferred reference before the Industrial Tribunal at Bhavnagar. She submits that in the case of one similarly placed workman Shri Kantibhai Devshibhai Kumbhar, who was also appointed and terminated along with the petitioner, had also preferred Reference (IT) No.32 of 2014, which came to be decided on similar reasoning by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar and which came to be disposed of by order dated 14.10.2022, wherein the said workma