IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4098 of 2016 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Sd/-

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✓

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

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR.

Versus BABUBHAI BHOJABHAI KARAVADARA, & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MS SWEETY SAMARA, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR MUKESH H RATHOD(2432) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 09/03/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present petition impugns the judgment and order dated 14.08.2014 passed in Reference (LCJ) No.196 of 2005 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Junagadh, Camp at Porbandar, whereby the said reference has been partly allowed and the petitioners have been directed to reinstate the respondent no.1-

workman without back wages with continuity in service.

2. Learned AGP Ms. Sweety Samara submits that the learned Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the respondent no.1- workman was entitled for reinstatement without any evidence on record and there was no material available before the Labour Court to pass such an order of reinstatement with continuity of service. She submits that the respondent-workman was engaged by the petitioner- department in April, 1994 as a daily wager. She further submits that the respondent-workman was not re-engaged after 01.10.2003.

3. Learned AGP Ms. Samara submits that the respondent- workman was not appointed as per the recruitment rules and there was no sanctioned post and no due procedure was followed in the case of the respondent no.1-workman. She further submits that without any cogent evidence on record, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent-workman has completed 240 days in the last preceding year. She submits that before the Labour Court, the petitioners herein could not defend their case or produce any evidence on record since the right of the petitioners came to be closed by the learned Labour Court. She submits that the Labour Court has passed an ex parte order without hearing the petitioners and therefore also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. She further submits that the respondent-workman was engaged temporarily as a daily wager and upon completion of the work, his services came to be discontinued. She submits that it ought to have been considered by the learned Labour Court that the respondent was a daily wager on temporary basis and therefore, not entitled for reinstatement. She, therefore, submits that the present petition be allowed and the impugned judgment and order be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel Mr.Mukesh Rathod appearing for the respondent no.1-workman submits that in the present case, the respondent-workman was a daily wager working with the petitioner from April, 1994 till September, 2003 i.e. for a period of more than 9 years. He submits that the petitioner though served, did not choose to contest the Reference (LCJ) No.196 of 2005. He submits that after the service of notice, the petitioner appeared and prayed for time to file its vakalatnama and reply, however thereafter the petitioners have chosen not to contest the reference proceedings. He submits that despite opportunity is being given at each and every stage, the petitioners have not availed the same and therefore, the learned Labour Court had no option, but to decide the reference proceedings on the basis of the evidence available on record. He submits that the award dated 14.08.2014 passed by the Labour Court is just and proper.

5. Learned counsel Mr.Rathod appearing for the respondent- workman submits that the petitioners have been negligent in prosecuting their case before the learned Labour Court. He