Gujarat High Court
Veraval Patan Joint Nagarpalika vs Govindbhai Sharmalbhai Kamaliya on 27 November, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1256/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1256 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1161 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1256 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1257 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1108 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 1257 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1108 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1258 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1198 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 1258 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1198 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1259 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1091 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 1259 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1091 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1260 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1154 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 1260 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1154 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1262 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 171 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 1262 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 171 of 2025
Page 1 of 18
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:30:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1256/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1264 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1071 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 1264 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1071 of 2025
================================================================
VERAVAL PATAN JOINT NAGARPALIKA
Versus
GOVINDBHAI SHARMALBHAI KAMALIYA & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HEMANG PARIKH for the Respondent.
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 27/11/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Haribhai Patel for learned advocate Mr.Deepak P. Sanchela for the appellant/applicant and learned advocate Mr.Hemang Parikh for the respondents.
2. The appellant has preferred these Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 being aggrieved by the Common Judgment and Order dated 19th March, 2025 passed by the Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:30:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1256/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined learned Single Judge.
3. The brief facts of the case, narrated by the learned Single Judge in the impugned Judgment and Order dated 19th March, 2025, are as under :-
"2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned labour Court at Junagadh in Recovery 33C(2) application No.40 of 2023 below Exhibit 27 dated 08.10.2024 whereby the learned labour Court has directed the present petitioner to pay the difference of the wages as per the award dated 21.08.2015 passed in Reference (IT) No.225 of 2003 of Rs.8,49,433/- within a period of 30 days and if the said amount is not deposited within a period of 30 days, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 7% till the actual realization. Details of difference of wages of petitioners are as under:Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:30:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1256/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined Sr Petition Number Name Ref. Amount No Application (Rs.) Number 1 SCA/1071/2025 Bharat Damodarbhai 40/2023 8,49,433 Joshi 2 SCA/1091/2025 Harish Parshottambhai 42/2023 5,00,296 Dushara 3 SCA/1108/2025 Hiteshbhai Mulshankar 41/2023 8,49,433 Joshi 4 SCA/1154/2025 Javed Mojdin Khan 38/2023 8,49,433 5 SCA/1161/2025 Govindbhai Sarmanbhai 43/2023 6,70,677 Kamaniya 6 SCA/1198/2025 Jitendra Revashankar 39/2023 8,49,433 Trivedi 7 SCA/1234/2025 Arvindbhai Muldas 37/2023 8,49,433 Gondaliya 8 SCA/1849/2025 Pravinbhai Nathabhai 36/2023 8,49,433 Lukka
3. It is the case of the present petitioner that the respondent herein has filed the Reference being Reference (IT) No.225 of 2003 alleging that though the respondents are working as per the Parishishth annexed with the Anusuchi (terms of reference) since 1996 to 1998 onward and though they have completed 240 days continuous service, their services were not regularized inspite of having the sanctioned set up and they had not been paid the benefit of regular employee.Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:30:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1256/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined The said Reference was awarded in favour of the present respondents on 21.08.2015 and 15 employees whose names were figured in the Parishishth were granted the benefit of regularization and the petitioner was directed to make the pay fixation from the day on completion of 240 days however, the notional effect was given on the said pay fixation from the date of their regularization till the date of their award, which was challenged before this Court by way of the petition being Special Civil Application No.20968 of 2015 which came to be dismissed on 22.11.2016 by this Court as the order was not implemented by the present petitioner therefore, contempt petition came to be filed before this Court being Misc. Civil Application No.3294 of 2017 which was disposed of on 24.10.2019 by this Court with direction to implement the award within a period of two months and liberty to revive the contempt petition was reserved in case of non-implementation of said award. Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:30:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1256/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined
4. Thereafter, the order was passed by the present petitioner-Nagarpalika granting the benefit of regularization from 01.01.2009 i.e. on completion of 240 days as per the calculation made by the petitioner Nagarpalika. The benefits were paid to the respondents employees on 17.09.2019 which were remained unchallenged before any of the forum. It is the case of the present petitioners that thereafter the recovery application came to be filed before the learned labour Court claiming the benefit of the award on completion of one year of their initial appointment. The learned Reference Court after considering the evidence adduced has directed the present petitioner to pay the amount which is claimed in the recovery application, which is subject matter of consideration before this Court." 4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Haribhai Patel for Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:30:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1256/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined the appellant-original petitioner submitted that both the Labour Court and Hon'ble Single Judge have committed an error by relying upon the calculation-sheet placed on record by the respective workmen, without any supporting evidence, as such computation was not prepared by any expert and therefore, no benefit could have been granted by the Labour Court to the respondents-workmen relying upon such computation.
4.2. It was further submitted that the appellant-Municipality has granted the benefit as per the award passed in Reference (IT) No.225 of 2003 by considering the date of 1 st January, 2009 for all the workmen on the ground that they have completed 240 days in the past twelve months and also referred to the computation placed on record along with the Office Order dated 17.09.2019 annexed at Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:30:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1256/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined Annexure E in the Writ Petitions, wherein, the details of the number of days worked by each workman from January, 2008 to December, 2008 are mentioned. It was therefore submitted that as the details are placed on record along with the order of implementation of the award passed in Reference (IT) No.225 of 2003 and the respondents-workmen have accepted such computation, they could not have raised any objection thereafter, to consider the notional pay for fixation of salary from the date of their appointment on the basis that they have worked for 240 days with the Municipality. 4.3. Learned advocate Mr.Haribhai Patel therefore submitted that the Labour Court has committed an error by accepting the computation given by the respondents-workmen without any evidence on record and therefore, the order dated 17.09.2019 passed by the Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:30:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1256/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined Municipality, granting benefit as per the award passed in Reference (IT) No.225 of 2003, is required to be upheld and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside.
5. We have perused the Judgment and Order passed by the Labour Court in Recovery Application, being Recovery 33(C)(2) Application No.43 of 2023, which was challenged before the learned Single Judge by the appellant and on perusal of the same, it emerges that the respondents-workmen have filed the Recovery Application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the award passed in Reference (IT) No.225 of 2003, confirmed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.20968 of 2015, was implemented without fixing the pay scale of the respondents-workmen from the year in which they have completed 240 days of work and Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:30:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1256/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined arbitrarily, the Municipality has fixed 1st January, 2009 as a date for regularization of the respondents-workmen.
6. The Labour Court after considering the evidence led by both the sides has come to the conclusion that the Municipality failed to place on record any material to show that the computation given by the respondents-workmen is not correct and no evidence is placed on record and no justification or explanation is tendered as to why the date 1st January, 2009 is considered for the purpose of giving the benefit of regularisation to the respondents- workmen as per the award passed in Reference (IT) No.225 of 2003, contrary to the directions issued by the Labour Court in the said award which clearly stipulates that the benefit of regularisation is to be given from the year in which the respondents-workmen have Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:30:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1256/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined completed 240 days of work by considering the same as notional benefit to fix the pay scale with effect from the year 2015, when the award was passed on 21.08.2015. This Court also in Special Civil Application No.20968 of 2015 has observed as under :
"4. Only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner by amending the petition is that the said regularization of the appointees of 1994 and promotions were effected during the period when administrator was appointed to administer the affairs of the Nagar Palika and the orders were passed by the State Government and not the Nagar Palika. Even if that was so, it was obligatory upon the Nagar Palika to make recommendations keeping in view Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Under the circumstances, Labour Court cannot be said to have committed an error while directing regularization of the workmen concerned and therefore, Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:30:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1256/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined there is no reason to interfere with the impugned award. This petition, therefore, fails and is rejected."
7. The aforesaid order dated 22.11.2016 was subject to the application for recall filed by the appellant being Misc. Civil Application (for recall) No.1 of 2018 which was also disposed of by the learned Single Judge by order dated 14.06.2019 observing as under :
"12. This Court in para 4 of its original order has already pointed out the discriminatory treatment meted out to the workmen by preferring junior over the senior workmen. While deciding issue no.2, the Labour Court also has elaborately pointed out such discrimination. It was noticed from the evidence that since more than 23 years, the daily wagers were being appointed in absence of the rules of recruitment being in place. It was also noticed that since 2010, even the sanctioned Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:30:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1256/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined posts were being filled up through the daily wagers. Thus, the two classes of employees being the daily wagers, appointed before 1994 and after 1994, were daily wagers having been appointed de-hors recruitment procedure and were thus, similarly situated. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that appointment of the respondent-workmen was illegal and therefore regularization ought not to have been ordered. When pointedly asked whether the municipality has taken any action against the illegal appointees post 1994, he submitted that no such action was taken. Thus, on one hand the illegally appointees post 1994 are retained in the set up with the benefit of regularization and on the other hand, the contention contrary to its own conduct is raised by the applicant, which cannot be countenanced. It is only on account of the perpetuating illegalities or irregularities that the respondent-workmen herein most of whom have now completed about more than 30 Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:30:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1256/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined years of services are sought to be exploited by regularizing those appointed subsequent to them. As distinguished from the general principles of service jurisprudence, labour legislation, more particularly Industrial Disputes Act, does not tolerate unfair labour practice. When the applicant does not desire to follow the recruitment rules; and has not followed it since more than 23 years, its' conduct to resort to unfair labour practice by regularizing the workmen appointed post 1994 and opposing the regularization of those appointed prior to 1994 cannot be countenanced. Thus, not only discrimination is writ large; but unfair labour practice is also resorted to.
13. Seniority even in cases of daily wagers has significant role to play if sections 25G and 25H of the I.D.Act are taken into account. The provision respectively propound the principle of "last in first out" and preference to Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:30:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1256/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined the senior workman; on availability of work of a similar nature. The necessary corollary flowing from the principles akin to sections 25G and 25H would be that even in the cases of existing daily wagers or temporary or ad-hoc appointees, better position like promotion and other benefits, if intended to be bestowed by the employer to its workmen, it shall first be bestowed upon the senior workmen. The principles would stand violated in case of preference of junior workmen in the matter of regularization or promotion."
8. It is also pertinent to note that the order dated 17.09.2019, passed after the respondents-workmen preferred Misc. Civil Application No.3294 of 2017, by fixing the date as 1st January, 2009, is without any basis. Therefore, we do not find any substance in these Appeals when the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the Special Civil Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:30:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1256/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined Application No.1161 of 2025, has rightly observed as under :
"8. Challenging the above order, the petition which was filed before this Court was dismissed, however, no implementation of the award was made therefore, the contempt petition was filed being Misc. Civil Application No.3294 of 2017 which was disposed of with direction to comply with the award within a period of two months and liberty was reserved in favour of the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner has passed an order on 17.09.2019 granting the benefit of regularization from 01.01.2009 and fixing the pay scale accordingly. Referring the impugned order, it appears that neither the petitioners nor the respondents have placed any evidence on record to show that 240 days are completed on a particular date. However, this Court has referred the reasons assigned in Reference (IT) No.225 of 2003 wherein the muster roll was placed on record by Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:30:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1256/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined each of the employee. In addition to that, during the cross examination of the first party of the said Reference, it is admitted that from the date of their appointment the concerned workmen have served continuously. The respondent-workmen have claimed the benefit of regularization on completion of one year of service, which was disputed by the present petitioners on the ground that the completion of the service is done from 01.01.2009.
9. Supporting the contention, the petitioners have not placed on record any documentary evidence suggesting that the order, which was passed on 17.09.2019 granting the benefit of regularization. The petitioners have claimed that the calculation sheet, which is produced is not supported by any expert however, at the same time no contrary evidences were produced by the present petitioners to show that the said calculation sheet is erroneous. In that background, this Court did not Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:30:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1256/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined find any infirmity in the impugned order directing the present petitioner to pay the amount as claimed in the recovery application."
9. We are in complete agreement with the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, as well as in the order passed by the Labour Court. The Appeals therefore, being devoid of any merit, are accordingly dismissed. No orders as to cost.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) PALAK Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 22:30:09 IST 2025