Gujarat High Court
Rajula Nagarpalika vs Bhagubhai Aapabhai Dhandhal on 12 January, 2023
C/SCA/6450/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6450 of 2009
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6451 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
RAJULA NAGARPALIKA
Versus
BHAGUBHAI AAPABHAI DHANDHAL & 1 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VIVEK M HIRPARA(10418) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
SIDDHANT R SHAH(8722) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 12/01/2023
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
Both the present Special Civil Applications raise common questions of law and facts and therefore, both of them are being disposed of by the present common judgment.
Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 13 20:49:41 IST 2023
C/SCA/6450/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2023
2. In both the Special Civil Applications, the petitioner - Rajula Nagarpalika has prayed to quash and set aside the awards of the learned Labour Court, Amreli passed in Reference (LCA) Nos.65 of 2000 dated 9.3.2009 and 41 of 2001 dated 20.4.2009.
3. It is the case of the petitioner Nagarpalika that the respondent workmen were engaged as Rojmadar Ward Peon w.e.f. 3.2.1998. The respondent workmen left their services on their own accord and thereafter, references i.e. Reference (LCA) Nos.65 of 2000 and 41 of 2001 came to be filed by the respondent workmen in the learned Labour Court, Amreli. That the said references came to be decided ex-parte against the petitioner Nagarpalika. The petitioner Nagarpalika, thereafter, preferred Misc. Civil Application Nos.3 of 2005 and 2 of 2005 for setting aside the ex-parte awards which came to be dismissed by the learned Labour Court, Amreli. Thereafter, the petitioner Nagarpalika preferred Special Civil Application Nos.10255 of 2007 and 8198 of 2007 in this Court which came to be allowed and the ex-parte awards came to be quashed and set aside remanding the case back to the learned Labour Court, Amreli to Page 2 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 13 20:49:41 IST 2023 C/SCA/6450/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2023 dispose of the references on merits at the earliest after hearing both the parties. It was also directed by this Court, pending the adjudication of the references, the petitioner Nagarpalika shall pay Rs.51,051/- and Rs.52,055/- to the concerned workmen towards wages under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act ["ID Act" short].
3.1 Thereafter, the petitioner Nagarpalika filed its written statement before the learned Labour Court, Amreli. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case. After the closure of the evidence, the learned Labour Court after hearing both the parties was pleased to allow the references of the respondent workmen holding that there was violation of provisions of Sections 33, 25F, 25G and 25H of the ID Act and that the respondent workmen were entitled to reinstatement with 10% back wages and Rs.1,500/- as costs.
Aggrieved by the said impugned orders, the petitioner Nagarpalika has preferred the present Special Civil Applications.
4. Mr. Sidhant Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner Nagarpalika submitted that the appointment of the respondent workmen as Ad-hoc Rojmadar was not in accordance Page 3 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 13 20:49:41 IST 2023 C/SCA/6450/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2023 with law and as a matter of fact, the respondent workmen have left the services on their own accord w.e.f. 3.2.1998. He submitted that the appointment of the respondent workmen was as such in violation of Section 260 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act as prior permission of the office of the Director of Municipality was required for the appointment of the respondent workmen. He submitted that the impugned orders were in violation of the law as laid down by this Court wherein it has been held that the learned Labour Court is not empowered to direct the Nagarpalika to reinstate the workman if the sanctioned posts are exhausted. He submitted that the impugned judgment and awards are also against the settled principles of law because as far as Rojamdars are concerned, their appointment comes to an end on completion of the working day and allotted hours of duty. He further submitted that the respondent workmen have left on their own accord and therefore, there is no statutory compulsion to serve show cause notice asking for any explanation. He has also submitted that the provisions of Section 33 of the ID Act are not applicable in the case of respondent workmen. He submitted that, therefore, the impugned awards deserve to be quashed and set aside and the present Special Civil Applications be allowed. Page 4 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 13 20:49:41 IST 2023
C/SCA/6450/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2023
5. Per contra, Mr. Yogen Pandya, learned advocate appearing for the respondent workmen, submitted that the impugned judgment and awards are just and proper. He has submitted that the learned Labour Court has given cogent reasons based on the evidence which has come on record to grant relief to the respondent workmen. He submitted that it could not be controverted that the respondent workmen were removed from service pending the report from the Conciliation Officer with respect to the dispute about the regularization of the Rojamdar. He, therefore, submits that in view of the law laid down, there was violation of provisions of Section 33 of the ID Act as rightly held by the learned Labour Court. He further submits that there is nothing on record to show that the respondent workmen had left the job on their own volition and therefore also, the learned Labour Court has rightly held that there is a violation of Section 25F of the ID Act in the present case. He submits that evidence has been brought on record and also in the oral evidence of the witness for the petitioner Nagarpalika it has come on record that there were 15 Rojamdars who were working on the establishment of the petitioner Nagarpalika and therefore, there was violation of provisions of Section 25G and 25H of the ID Act Page 5 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 13 20:49:41 IST 2023 C/SCA/6450/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2023 as the petitioner Nagarpalika could not establish that they were senior to the respondent workmen. He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment and awards of the learned Labour Court are based on cogent evidence and require no interference. He, therefore, submitted that the present Special Civil Applications be dismissed.
6. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the evidence on record.
7. A perusal of the evidence shows that the witness of the petitioner Nagarpalika has stated in his oral evidence that there are no rules for engaging the Rojamdar / workers. In view thereof, the contention that the respondent workmen was not engaged in terms of the rules and regulations cannot be sustained and the same has been rightly rejected by the learned Labour Court. It has further come on record by way of the attendance card produced by the petitioner Nagarpalika that the respondent workmen have worked on the establishment of the petitioner Nagarpalika for more than 240 days in the preceeding year. In view thereof, since the respondent workmen have worked continuously for more than 240 days, it was incumbent Page 6 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 13 20:49:41 IST 2023 C/SCA/6450/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2023 upon the petitioner Nagarpalika to follow the procedure of Section 25F of the ID Act to retrench the respondent workmen. In the present case, the same has not been done and therefore, the retrenchment of the respondent workmen is in violation of Section 25F of the ID Act.
7.1 It has further come on record that 13 Rojamdars were still working on the establishment of the petitioner Nagarpalika. The said fact could not be disputed by the petitioner Nagarpalika. However, nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner Nagarpalika to establish that all these Rojamdars were senior to the respondent workmen. As record was being maintained by the petitioner Nagarpalika, it was the onus on them to produce such evidence to show that the Rojamdars who were working on the establishment were senior to the respondent workmen. 7.2 Therefore, looking at the evidence on record, the findings arrived at by the learned Labour Court with respect to violation of provisions of Sections 33, 25G, 25H and 25F are not required to be interfered with. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned judgment and awards are in accordance with law and cogent reasons have been recorded by the learned Labour Court.
Page 7 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 13 20:49:41 IST 2023
C/SCA/6450/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2023 In view of the above observations and findings, the present Special Civil Applications are devoid of merits and the same are dismissed. No order as to costs. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated forthwith.
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN Page 8 of 8 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 13 20:49:41 IST 2023