Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/27409/2007 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 27409 of 2007
=========================================================
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DEVUBEN
MANGABHAI & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
SEJAL K MANDAVIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,3 - 4.
MS
LUCINTA S RAJ for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 09/07/2008
ORAL ORDER
Ms.
Mandavia appears for petitioner and Ms. Lucinta S. Raj appears for
respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. The petitioner has challenged an award
dated 8.5.2007 directing the Panchayat to reinstate the four
respondents without backwages. The Panchayat is aggrieved by the
said order and has challenged the same on diverse grounds in this
petition.
2. One
of the contentions raised by Ms. Mandavia is required to be noted
only for rejecting the same. Ms. Mandavia contended that after the
work of the reconstruction of the road was over the Panchayat
addressed a communication to the concerned department of the State
Government that the personnel who worked on the road may also be
absorbed by the department and the panchayat is relegating them to
the concerned department of the State Government. There is nothing
on record to support such stand of the petitioner panchayat. There
is also nothing on record to support the submission that the
respondents were engaged only for the purpose of the said work. In
absence of any evidence on record which may establish the said fact,
it is not possible to accept the said submission as the respondent
No.1 was working with the panchayat for more than 3 years and
under the circumstances, the said contention shall fail. However Ms.
Mandavia has made out a case for the petitioner that the respondents
herein were daily-wagers and never completed actual work for 240 days
in any of the years during which they were so engaged on daily wages
and casual basis. From perusal of the award, it appears that the
panchayat did try to demonstrate before the Labour Court that one of
the respondents, namely Devuben Mangabhai had met with the
requirement, and in respect of other 3 respondents it was claimed
that the said 3 respondents had never worked in the petitioner
panchayat. It appears that the Labour Court has not addressed the
said contention of the petitioner in the impugned award. Thus, the
petition requires consideration. Hence, Rule. In
view of the contentions raised by the petitioner, ad-interim relief
in terms of Para 8(B) on condition that the petitioner shall comply
with the provisions under Section 17-B of the Act. It would be open
for the respondents to make appropriate application for modification
of the interim order with supporting documents.
[ K.M. Thaker, J. ]
Rmr.
Top