Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Vrajlal Bachubhai Khachariya vs State Of Gujarat & 5 on 1 September, 2017

Amreli Municipality vs Shantibhai Dhyabhai Jethva on 20 January, 2025

12. The next question which arise for the consideration is that whether the sanction set up was available or not. The set up which was produced by the learned advocate for the petitioner for the petitioner of March, 2022 suggests that in all there were 93 posts sanctioned out of that 54 posts were filled up and 39 posts are still vacant. The decision which was relied by the learned advocate for the petitioner in the case of Amreli Municipality Versus Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Karmachari Sangh (supra) and Vrajlal Bachubhai Khachariya versus State of Gujarat (supra) wherein, this Court has observed that in absence of the sanction set up, direction to regularize the service cannot be passed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation vs Kaushikbhai Batukbhai Zala on 29 June, 2021

[1] Taleshkumar Maganbhai Patel and others vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and another [Special Civil Application No.11441 of 2012 and allied matters decided on 23rd June 2015] [2] Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai vs. R. Govindswamy and others [2014] 4 SCC 769] [3] State of Tamil Nadu vs. A. Singamuthu [(2017) 4 SCC 113] [4] Vrajlal Bachubhai Khachariya vs. State of Gujarat [(2018) 2 GLR 917] Page 5 of 16 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 11:39:17 IST 2021 C/LPA/1577/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2021 [5]State of Karnataka and others vs. G.V. Chandrashekar [(2009) 4 SCC 342] [6] Upendra Singh vs. State of Bihar [(2018) 3 SCC 680] [7] Pallaviben Pareshkumar Jaiswal vs. Principal [(2017) 1 GLR 781]
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation vs Rajubhai Ratnabhai Kalotara on 29 June, 2021

[1] Taleshkumar Maganbhai Patel and others vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and another [Special Civil Application No.11441 of 2012 and allied matters decided on 23rd June 2015] [2] Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai vs. R. Govindswamy and others [2014] 4 SCC 769] [3] State of Tamil Nadu vs. A. Singamuthu [(2017) 4 SCC 113] [4] Vrajlal Bachubhai Khachariya vs. State of Gujarat [(2018) 2 GLR 917] Page 5 of 16 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 07 06:58:31 IST 2021 C/LPA/1577/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2021 [5]State of Karnataka and others vs. G.V. Chandrashekar [(2009) 4 SCC 342] [6] Upendra Singh vs. State of Bihar [(2018) 3 SCC 680] [7] Pallaviben Pareshkumar Jaiswal vs. Principal [(2017) 1 GLR 781]
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation vs Rajubhai Ratnabhai Kalotara on 29 June, 2021

[1] Taleshkumar Maganbhai Patel and others vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and another [Special Civil Application No.11441 of 2012 and allied matters decided on 23rd June 2015] [2] Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai vs. R. Govindswamy and others [2014] 4 SCC 769] [3] State of Tamil Nadu vs. A. Singamuthu [(2017) 4 SCC 113] [4] Vrajlal Bachubhai Khachariya vs. State of Gujarat [(2018) 2 GLR 917] Page 5 of 16 Downloaded on : Sat Jan 15 09:19:53 IST 2022 C/LPA/1577/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2021 [5]State of Karnataka and others vs. G.V. Chandrashekar [(2009) 4 SCC 342] [6] Upendra Singh vs. State of Bihar [(2018) 3 SCC 680] [7] Pallaviben Pareshkumar Jaiswal vs. Principal [(2017) 1 GLR 781]
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Rasulbhai Umarbhai Malek vs Director Of Municipalities on 6 October, 2021

10.1 Learned advocate Mr. Vyas further submitted that merely because the petitioner was paid amount of gratuity, the petitioner does not become eligible for pension benefits as the petitioner was appointed on permanent post only in the year 1996. It was submitted that reliance placed by the petitioner on the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay in the year 1954 is also not applicable in view of decision of Full Bench of this Court in case of Amreli Municipality v. Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Employees Union1 1 2004(2) GLH 692 Page 9 of 36 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 21:51:20 IST 2022 C/SCA/12554/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2021 and decision in case of Vrajlal Bachubhai Khachariya v. State of Gujarat2, wherein it is held that the Labour Court or the Tribunal has no power or authority to grant regularisation of service and no direction can be given for granting such benefit. It was therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefits pursuant to award dated 17.5.1954.
Gujarat High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document

Veraval Patan Joint Nagarpalika ... vs Mahagujarat General Works Union on 2 July, 2021

6. It is pertinent to note that in similar situation, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vrajlal Bachubhai Khachariya (supra) has held that 'when the initial appointments as daily wagers are violative of Article 14, merely because the workman has worked for number of years and their appointments can be said to be back door entry, their services are not required to be regularized and that the Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal would not be justified in passing the order of regularization and/or permanency'.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A P Thaker - Full Document

Menderda Gram Panchayat Thru ... vs Maheshbhai Ramjibhai Maheta on 16 February, 2022

9. It is an established fact that the respondent no.1 is working with the petitioner from last 20 years. There is no dispute that he has continued to work every year for 240 days and his service was on a continuous and uninterrupted basis. This has been noted by the Labour Court on the basis Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 18 21:10:09 IST 2022 C/SCA/1754/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2022 of the documentary as well as oral evidence. The only plea that has been taken is of absence of any setup of Walveman. It is noteworthy that the Labour Court has extensively dealt with oral as well as documentary evidences and has noted that though the work of the permanent employee has been taken from the respondent no.1, he has not been paid the dues by the petitioner under the pretext of absence of sanctioned post. It has rightly termed this conduct of the petitioner as "unfair labour practice" from last 20 years. The respondent admittedly has been working as a Walveman (Class-IV) and that has been proved by clinching evidence of the petitioner's side. Relying upon the decisions rendered in cases of Umrada Gram Panchayat v. Secretary, Municipal Employees Union and others reported in 2015 (1) GLH 712 and the decision of Vrajlal Bachubhai Khachariya v. State of Gujarat reported in 2018 (1) GLH 56, the Labour Court has chosen to partly allow the case of the respondent.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Menderda Gram Panchayat vs Hakkabhai Gandabhai Tariya on 4 March, 2022

7. It is an established fact that the respondent No.1 is working with the petitioner from last 20 years. There is no dispute that he has continued to work every year for 240 days and his service was on a continuous and uninterrupted basis. This has been noted by the Labour Court on the basis of the documentary as well as oral evidence. The only plea that has been taken is of absence of any setup of Driver. It is noteworthy that the Labour Court has extensively dealt with oral as well as documentary evidences and has noted that though the work of the permanent employee has been taken from the respondent No.1, he has not been paid the dues by the petitioner under the pretext of absence of sanctioned post. It has rightly termed this conduct of the petitioner as "unfair labour practice" from last 20 years. The respondent admittedly has been working as a Driver and that has been proved by clinching Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 07 21:02:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/1379/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/03/2022 evidence of the petitioner's side. Relying upon the decisions rendered in cases of Umrada Gram Panchayat Vs. Secretary, Municipal Employees Union and others, 2015 (1) GLH 712 and the decision of Vrajlal Bachubhai Khachariya v. State of Gujarat, 2018 (1) GLH 56, the Labour Court has chosen to partly allow the case of the respondent.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Veraval Patan Joint Nagarpalika ... vs Mahagujarat General Works Union on 2 July, 2021

6. It is pertinent to note that in similar situation, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vrajlal Bachubhai Khachariya (supra) has held that 'when the initial appointments as daily wagers are violative of Article 14, merely because the workman has worked for number of years and their appointments can be said to be back door entry, their services are not required to be regularized and that the Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal would not be justified in passing the order of regularization and/or permanency'.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A P Thaker - Full Document

Menderda Gram Panchayat vs Hakkabhai Gandabhai Tariya on 12 July, 2023

9. The record speaks that Labour Court has noticed that workman was working for 20 years. Work of Driver has been taken from him and that has been proved by cogent Page 5 of 7 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 21:12:15 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/657/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2023 undefined evidence. Learned Single Judge has also noted evidence produced by the workman and appreciated by the Labour Court in the background of settled law in the case of Umrada Gram Panchayat as well as Vrajlal Bachubhai Khachariya (supra).
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - N V Anjaria - Full Document
1   2 Next