Gujarat High Court
Veraval Patan Joint Municipality vs Sanjay Arjanbhai Katariya on 30 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/171/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 171 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
VERAVAL PATAN JOINT MUNICIPALITY
Versus
SANJAY ARJANBHAI KATARIYA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 30/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition was heard on 27.01.2025 and thereafter kept for dictation of judgment.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Junagadh in Recovery Application No.35 of 2023 filed under section 33(C)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whereby the petitioner - Municipality was directed to pay the amount of Rs.8,49,433/- within a period of 30 days and in default same shall Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Feb 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 00:58:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/171/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined be paid at the rate of 7% interest. Learned Labour Court has also awarded cost of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent - workman.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent along with 14 other employees has filed the reference being I.T. No.225 of 2003 before the learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot claiming the regularization in the service which was allowed vide order dated 21.08.2015 directing the Municipality to regularize the service on the post depicted against their name from the date of completion of 240 days and to fix their pay scale accordingly. It is observed that yearly increment would be excluded and directed to pay the actual benefits flowing from the date of its implementation and the interregnum period was to be considered as notional. Petitioner - Municipality has challenged the above order by filling the petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No.20968 of 2015, which was rejected vide order dated 22.11.2016. The application for Review/Recall came to be filed being Misc. Civil Application No.1 of 2018, which was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 14.06.2019, thereafter Municipality has regularized the service of the respondent - Workman in compliance of the award passed by the Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Feb 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 00:58:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/171/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined learned Labour Industrial Tribunal dated 21.08.2015 and benefits flowing from the award came to be paid to the respondent - workmen on 17.09.2019.
3.1 The respondent - workman has filed Recovery Application No.35 of 2023 under Section 33(C)(2) before learned Labour Court, Junagadh alleging that petitioner - Municipality has not complied with the award dated 21.08.2015 in its true spirit and pay fixation was not made from 06.11.1995, therefore, claim was made to pay the difference amount. After fixing the pay scale from 06.11.1995, petitioner - Municipality appeared and filed the reply and learned Labour Court, after considering the arguments and the evidence adduced by both the parties, has allowed the application filed under Section 33 (C)(2) directing for pay fixation on completion of 240 days and to pay the difference amount to the employees who are named in the schedule annexed with the demand, which is subject matter of the challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Patel with learned advocate Mr. Deepak Sanchela for the petitioner - Municipality. Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Feb 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 00:58:55 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/171/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined 4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Sanchela for the petitioner submits that no evidence was adduced to show that the respondent - employee has completed 240 days prior to the year 2009 and therefore, calculation prepared by the petitioner, is just and proper. Without considering the same and by ignoring the calculation, in absence of any contrary evidence, learned Labour Court has passed an order allowing the application filed by the respondent under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act. Learned advocate Mr. Sanchela submits that learned Labour Court has committed error in shifting the onus on the petitioner - Municipality to prove that the respondent has completed 240 days prior to 2009 and in absence of any evidence, the application came to be allowed. Learned advocate Mr. Sanchela submits that without assigning cogent reasons, the award was passed in favour of the respondent and therefore, same is required to be set aside by allowing the petition filed by the petitioner.
5. Having heard the learned advocate Mr. Sanchela for the petitioner and considering the reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court in the impugned order, it emerges from the record that claim of the regularization made by the respondent Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Feb 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 00:58:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/171/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined employee, was allowed by award dated 21.08.2015 and the direction was issued upon the petitioner - Municipality to regularize the service of the employees who are named in the schedule annexed with the statement of claim from the date of completion of 240 days and the fixation of the pay scale shall be done accordingly. It is observed that the respondent would not be entitled for the yearly increment and the benefit for the interregnum period shall be paid notional income. The award passed by the reference came to be confirmed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.20968 of 2015 and thereafter, the contempt petition came to be filed by the respondent - employee being Misc. Civil Application No.3294 of 2017, which was disposed of by this Court.
5.1 On being implemented the award by the petitioner - Municipality, the Municipality has made fixation of wages from 01.01.1990 instead of completion of 240 date in service, therefore, claim was made that pay fixation may be made from 06.09.1995. As per award passed by the Leonard Labour Court dated 21.08.2015, it was also claimed that after fixing the pay scale from above date, the difference amount be also paid to the Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Feb 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 00:58:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/171/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined respondent - employee and the calculation was annexed with the application filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act by the respondent - employee.
5.2 The contention of the respondent is that the award was implemented and pay fixation was done on completion of 240 days from 01.01.2009. As per the statement produced by the petitioner, the respondent has completed 240 days and by giving effect of notional, the arrears were paid from 01.01.2009 to 2015 which was accepted by the respondent. The witness of the petitioner - Nagarpalika, who was examined below exhibit - 21 before the learned Labour Court has admitted that the notional benefits were calculated from 01.01.2009 and prior to 01.01.2009 was not calculated by giving the effect of the notional to the respondent - employee. No calculation of the days were produced by the petitioner - Municipality to show that the 240 days were completed only on 01.01.2009 and therefore, the effect was given of the award from 01.01.2009. It is admitted by the witness that the calculation sheet which was produced by the respondent - employee, was not rebutted by producing the calculation sheet showing that actual amount which is required Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Feb 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 00:58:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/171/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined to be paid is not as stated by the respondent but as stated in the calculation sheet, petitioner has projected before the learned Court that as the 240 days is completed on 01.09.2009, therefore, the benefits were given from that date without producing any contemporary evidence, as the award passed by directing to regularize the service of the respondent is attained the finality, learned Labour Court has directed to give the effect of the award from 06.11.1995 instead of 01.01.2009, this Court is of the view that in absence of any contrary evidence produced by the petitioner to show that the completion of 240 days was done from the 01.09.2009 not prior to that, learned Labour Court is justified in allowing the application filed under Section 33(C)(2) by directing the petitioner - employer to pay the amount of difference of salary of Rs.8,49,433/-.
6. In that view, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is just and proper and therefore, no interference is required and the petition is required to be dismissed.
7. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Feb 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 00:58:55 IST 2025