IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12731 of 2020 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2022 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12731 of 2020 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 774 of 2021 ================================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Versus DHULABHAI FULABHAI MALIVAD & ANR.

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

Appearance: In Special Civil Application No.12731 of 2020 MS SWEETY SAMARA, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR PARESH J BRAHMBHATT(9788) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ================================================================

Appearance: In Special Civil Application No.774 of 2021 MR PARESH J BRAHMBHATT(9788) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS SWEETY SAMARA, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 27/04/2026 COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. Both the writ petitions challenge the award dated 04.02.2019 passed in Reference (T) No.349 of 1999, whereby the learned Labour Court has granted reinstatement to the respondent-workman with continuity in service and without any back-wages.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the cause title in Special Civil Application No.12731 of 2020.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-workman was appointed on 01.08.1996 as a daily wager watchman on a monthly pay of Rs.750/-. That the service of the respondent-

workman came to be terminated on 15.04.1998. That thereafter, the respondent-workman raised dispute on 23.11.1998 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Godhra, who by communication dated 03.04.1999 has made the reference to the Labour Court. Both the parties have led evidence in support of their contentions. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-workman has only worked for 70 days in the year 1995-1996 and for 122 days in the year 1996- 1997. It is further the case of the petitioner that there was no continuous service rendered by the respondent-workman during the said period. It is also further the case of the petitioner that the respondent-workman was engaged intermittently on a project, which came to an end once the grant allocation was completed. The learned Labour Court after appreciating the evidence and the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, has concluded that the the service of the respondent-workman came to be terminated on 15.04.1998. The witness, who has deposed on behalf of the petitioner was not personally aware of the facts of the case of the respondent-workman and therefore, could not prove the contention. Accordingly, by the impugned award, the learned Labour Court has held that the termination of the respondent-workman was in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act” for short) and has thus, granted reinstatement in service with continuity and without any back-wages.

4. In the present case, the reference was made on 03.04.1999 and has been decided by the learned Labour Court on 04.02.2019 after a period of 20 years. Further, the respondent-workman has attained the age of superannuation in the year 2022 and the impugned award has also not been implemented.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent-workman herein has worked from 01.08.1996 till 15.04.1998 i.e. for a period of 1 year and 8 months. The petitioner thereafter has not been reinstated and has purportedly attained the age of superannuation in the year 2022.

6. In the case of State of Uttarakhand v. Raj Kumar, (2019) 14 SCC 353, the Apex Court has held thus:-

“9.In our opinion, the case at hand is covered by the two decisions of this Court rendered in BSNL v. Bhurumal [BSNL v. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 373] and Distt. Development Officer v. Satish Kantil