Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1060/2002 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1060 of 2002
IN
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6433 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
======================================
VADODARA
DISTRICT PANCHAYAT - Appellant
Versus
DILIPBHAI
A PARMAR - Respondent
======================================
Appearance
:
MR
HS MUNSHAW for Appellant.
MS JIRGA D JHAVERI for
Respondent.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 26/08/2011
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We
have heard Mr. H. S. Munshaw, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Ms. Jirga D. Jhaveri, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
2. This
Intra-Court Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the
judgment and order dated 18.10.2002 passed by the Learned Single
Judge in Special Civil Application No.6433 of 2002 whereby the
Learned Single Judge has dismissed the said Special Civil Application
and confirmed the award dated 29.11.2001 passed by the Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference (LCV) No.697 of 1999
whereby the Labour Court directed the appellant to reinstate the
respondent in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. Learned
counsel for the appellant has urged that the Learned Single Judge
inquired from the appellant that how many regular posts are available
with the appellant Panchayat so that regular employees could be
appointed on these posts. In response to this, learned counsel for
the appellant has informed the Court that from 23.01.1998, regular
vacancies of Class IV were filled in. However, as the respondent was
appointed for a short period and even if he has worked for 240 days
in a last preceding one year, he would not be entitled for
regularization of his services as the daily wager has no right of
continuity and is not entitled to the benefits of Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He further urged that the case of the
respondent was squarely covered under the provisions of Section 2
(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the
learned counsel for the appellant, though the said contention was
advanced before the Learned Single Judge, the said contention was not
dealt with by the Learned Single Judge.
4. While
perusing the judgment of the Learned Single Judge, we find that the
said argument of the appellant has not been considered by the Learned
Single Judge. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by
the Learned Single Judge cannot be maintained. In the result, this
appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order
dated 18.10.2002 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application No.6433 of 2002 is set aside and the writ petition is
remanded back to the Learned Single Judge for deciding the matter
afresh after hearing learned counsel for the parties expeditiously,
subject to His Lordship’s convenience. Rule is made absolute to the
above extent. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Sd/-
[V. M. SAHAI, J.]
Sd/-
[G. B. SHAH, J.]
Savariya
Top