Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 68 (GUJ)

Taluka Panchayat v. Satishkumar P Madalani

2018-01-11

MOHINDER PAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition has been filed against the award dated 12.1.1995 published on 7.3.1995 and received by the petitioner on 14.3.1995, vide which, the respondent-workman is ordered to be reinstated in service of petitioner-panchayat without back-wages after declaring the action of the panchayat in discharging the workman from service on 31.3.1990 as void, illegal and against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The petitioner is a body corporate by the name of Taluka Panchayat constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961. The petitioner-Taluka Panchayat for certain contingencies like famine, scarcity, flood relief etc. has made appointments on daily-wages of persons after calling for the names of persons from Employment Exchange. The respondent-workman was one of the person who was appointed as Muster Clerk for the period of 29 days under the aforementioned scheme. The appointment of the respondent-workman was temporary and on ad-hoc basis for the relief work and on expiry of the said period, the respondent-workman was deemed to have been relieved. It is the case of the petitioner-Panchayat that the respondent-workman has worked on the aforementioned post for a period of four months, and thereafter he was reemployed in the year 1987 and finally relieved on 31.3.1990. It is further the case of the respondent-workman that persons junior to him namely Shri Harish Parmar has been retained in service. With the aforementioned grievance, the respondent-workman approached the Labour Court at Junagadh by filing Reference No. LCJ No. 1760/90. The Labour Court has recorded the finding in favour of the respondent-workman by directing that the workman should be reinstated on the original post with continuity of service without back-wages. 3. The petitioner – Taluka Panchayat has challenged this award before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 5957/1995. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.3.2001 gave finding in favour of the petitioner-Panchayat and set aside the award passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh. The matter was further carried to the Division Bench in form of LPA No. 577/2001. The Division Bench set aside the decision of learned Single Judge and remanded the matter back to this Court for deciding afresh. This is how this matter is put up before this Court. 4. The matter was further carried to the Division Bench in form of LPA No. 577/2001. The Division Bench set aside the decision of learned Single Judge and remanded the matter back to this Court for deciding afresh. This is how this matter is put up before this Court. 4. Main grievance of the respondent-workman from the beginning is that, initially he was appointed as daily-wager where he worked for a period of four months, however, he was re-employed on 7.9.1987 and he has worked till 31.3.1990. He was required to be made permanent as he has worked for 240 days in one calender year and one Mr. Parmar who is junior him, has been retained in service while service of the respondent-workman has been illegally terminated by the petitioner-Taluka Panchayat. 5. The Labour Court while taking into account the statement of claim made by the respondent-workman and the fact that the statement of respondent-workman has gone unrebutted, passed an award in favour of the respondent-workman directing the petitioner-Taluka Panchayat to take back the respondent-workman into service, however, was not held entitled for back-wages etc. The aforementioned award has been set aside by the learned Single Judge, however, finding of the learned Single Judge has been set at naught by the learned Division Bench of this Court and the matter is ordered to be decided afresh by this Court. 6. From the documents available on file, discussion before the Labour Court and from the lawyers appearing in this case, it has come to my notice that after the respondent-workman discharged by the Gram Panchayat, he has remained gainfully employed with other Panchayat from 1990 till 2002. 7. It could be seen that the total period of work with the present Gram Panchayat is 2 years and six months, while the present respondent-workman has remained in gainful employment with other panchayat for a period of about 12 years. The respondent-workman now should be aged around 57-58 years. This Court is of the view that directing the present petitioner to take back the respondent-workman in service, at this stage, will up-set the seniority of employees in the cadre. If appointment at this stage is given, the workman will further claim for pensionary benefits when he has actually worked with the panchayat for 2 and ½ years. 8. This Court is of the view that directing the present petitioner to take back the respondent-workman in service, at this stage, will up-set the seniority of employees in the cadre. If appointment at this stage is given, the workman will further claim for pensionary benefits when he has actually worked with the panchayat for 2 and ½ years. 8. Keeping in view the age of the petitioner, the period of work with the present gram panchayat, the period left for which the petitioner could be re-employed and the period he has worked with another panchayat, the ends of justice will be met by allowing this petition. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.1.1995 passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in LCJ No. 1760/1990 is quashed and set aside. However, no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.