Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/754/2011 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 754 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6599 of 2002
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI Sd/-
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Sd/-
======================================
1.
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
NO
2.
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
NO
3.
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
NO
4.
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
NO
5.
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
NO
======================================
GENDALBHAI
BHAVABHAI CHAUHAN - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER G.W.R.D.C. SUB DIVISION 2 - Respondents
======================================
Appearance
:
MR
KJ DWIVEDI for Appellant.
MR DG CHAUHAN for
Respondent.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 06/05/2011
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
We
have heard Mr. K. J. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant.
This
Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging
the judgment dated 10.08.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Special Civil Application No.6599 of 2002 by which the writ petition
has been allowed and award dated 28.09.2001 passed by the Labour
Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No.532 of 1990 has been set aside.
The
appellant was engaged as a Contractor by the respondent Corporation
for operating and maintaining the tube-wells at village Rasikpura by
two agreements dated 01.11.1985 and 1.11.1986. The contract period
as per the second contract came to an end on 31.10.1987. After the
expiry of second contract, to ensure water supply to the farmers,
the appellant was asked to continue to carry on the work on the same
terms and conditions unless and until third contract is entered into
between the parties. The appellant filed writ petition seeking
relief that he may not be terminated from service. The writ
petition was dismissed on the ground that under the provisions of
Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner had alternative remedy
before the Labour Court. The appellant raised industrial dispute
and the Labour Court has allowed the claim and directed
reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages. The
learned Single Judge has held as under :-
“5.
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the
documents on record. It is a matter of fact that the respondent was
engaged as a Contractor by two separate Agreements, viz. dated
01.11.1985 & 01.11.1986. However, the respondent was continued in
work, after the completion of the contract period, on account of the
interim stay against his termination granted by this Court in S.C.A.
No.4401/1988 filed by him. Subsequently, vide order dated 03.03.1989,
the said petition came to be dismissed. In the said order dated
03.03.1989, it has been recorded that pursuant to the vacation of
ad-interim stay granted in favour of the respondent, his services
came to be terminated by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the work
rendered by the respondent under the two different Agreements cannot
be considered for counting 240 days, as contemplated u/s.25B of the
I.D. Act, since the said work was done in pursuance of a contract /
agreement and not on the basis of any relationship of master –
servant. The Court below failed to appreciate the facts of the case
in its proper perspective and committed serious illegality in
clubbing the period of work done by the respondent under the two
different Agreements for calculating 240 days. Hence, the impugned
award passed by the Court below, being illegal and contrary to the
settled principles of law, deserves to be quashed and set aside.”
We
agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and we do not
find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge. This appeal is devoid of any merits and is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
[V. M. SAHAI, J.]
Sd/-
[G. B. SHAH, J.]
Savariya
Top