Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Veraval Patan Joint Nagarpalika ... vs Mukeshbhai Pravinbhai Pandya on 7 May, 2025

                                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/1020/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025

                                                                                                           undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1020 of 2025


                        FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                        HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

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

                                     Approved for Reporting              Yes           No
                                                                                       NO
                        ==========================================================
                         VERAVAL PATAN JOINT NAGARPALIKA THROUGH ITS CHIEF OFFICER
                                                  Versus
                                   MUKESHBHAI PRAVINBHAI PANDYA & ANR.
                        ==========================================================
                        Appearance:
                        MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                        ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

                                                     Date : 07/05/2025

                                                     ORAL JUDGMENT

1. 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.71 of 2023 below Exhibit 20 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1020/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined

2. 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. The said Reference was awarded in favour of the present respondents on 21.08.2015 and 15 employee whose name was 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.

3. Thereafter, the order was passed by the present Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 16:53:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1020/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined 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 respondent- employee on 17.09.2019 which were remained unchallenged before any of the forum. It is the case of the present petitioner 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. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Patel for learned advocate Mr.Sanchela for petitioner-Nagarpalika.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Patel has submitted that the learned labour Court has committed an error in relying on the calculation sheet placed by the respondent-workman without having any supporting evidence. Learned advocate Mr.Patel submits that the said calculation sheet was not prepared by any expert, therefore, the benefit cannot be granted from the date which is mentioned in the calculation sheet. Learned advocate Mr.Patel submits that learned labour Court has committed an error in drawing the adverse inference against the present petitioner without having filed any production application Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 16:53:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1020/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined by the respondent herein. Learned advocate Mr.Patel submits that as the compliance of the award is made by the present petitioner, no requirement arise for filing of separate calculation sheet showing that the completion of 240 days is done from 01.01.2009. Learned advocate Mr.Patel submits that on the contrary to establish the case that the completion of 240 days is done prior to 01.01.2009, the respondent herein ought to have produced the documentary evidence supporting his claim. Learned advocate Mr.Patel submits that in absence of any evidence, learned Reference Court has committed error in allowing the recovery application filed by the respondent-herein. Learned advocate Mr.Patel submits that without seeking any cogent evidence, straightway the learned labour Court has relied on the calculation sheet placed by the respondent-workman and therefore, impugned order deserves to be set aside and the recovery application is required to be remanded back to the learned labour Court for fresh consideration.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, it is an undisputed fact that the Reference which was filed claiming the benefits of regularization being Reference (IT) No.225 of 2003 was awarded in favour of the respondent. Learned Reference Court while passing the award on 21.08.2015 has granted the benefit of regularization on completion of 240 days and petitioner was directed to pay fixation on completion of 240 days and notional effect from the date of Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 16:53:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1020/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined regularization till the date of award is passed and thereafter, the benefit of award was directed to pay to the respondent.

7. 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 petitioner 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 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 petitioner on the ground that the completion of the service is done from 01.01.2009.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1020/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined

8. Supporting the contention, the petitioner has not placed on record any documentary evidence suggesting that the order, which was passed on 17.09.2019 granting the benefit of regularization. The petitioner has 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 petitioner to show that the said calculation sheet is erroneous. In that background, this Court did not find any infirmity in the impugned order directing the present petitioner to pay the amount as claimed in the recovery application.

9. Hence, these petitions are dismissed.

(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 16:53:38 IST 2025