SCA/3776/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3776 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 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 ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================= SARDAR KRUSHINAGAR DANTIWADA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY (EARSTWH - Petitioner) Versus ROOPSINH GHEMARJI KHODEDIYA - Respondent ================================================= Appearance : MR DG CHAUHAN for Petitioner : MR DHAVAL M BAROT for Respondent : ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 15/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Shri Dhaval Barot, learned counsel for the respondent waives service of notice of rule. At the request of learned counsels for the parties this matter is being finally disposed of. 2. The petitioner-employer Sardar Krushinagar Dantiwada SCA/3776/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT Agriculture University has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the award dated 7/4/2007 passed in Reference (LCP) No. 187 of 1996 (Old No. LCA) No. 1780 of 1990, by Labour Court at Palanpur, where under the respondent workman is ordered to be reinstated as daily wager Clerk-Cum-Typist without any backwages and to pay cost of Rs.250/-. 3. Shri Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the award is challenged only with regard to the direction to reinstate the respondent workman on the post of daily wager Clerk-Cum-Typist and the employer petitioner is ready & willing to reinstate the workman on his original post i.e. Farm Labour. Shri Chauhan has pointed out from the relevant evidence led before the Labour Court that, in fact the workman was originally appointed 'farm labour' in the Agricultural University and it was never a daily wager Clerk- Cum-Typist. The employer at the relevant time did ask the workman to perform duties of clerk to meet with the exigency of regular clerk cum typist being absent. He has demonstrated from the statement indicating the actual days the respondent workman performed his duties as Farm Labour and the days he performed his duties as daily wager Clerk-Cum-Typist. He submitted that the Labour Court ought not to have ordered reinstatement of the respondent workman to the post of daily wager Clerk -Cum-Typist. 4. Shri Barot, learned counsel appearing for the respondent workman submitted that the table indicated by counsel for the petitioner show that the workman when he was terminated was in fact discharging his duties as Clerk-Cum- Typist and therefore he is rightly to be appointed to the post of Clerk-Cum-Typist. Shri Barot further submitted that the SCA/3776/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT Reference is also made with respect to reinstatement on the said post. However Shri Barot could not deny or controvert the contention raised by Shri Chauhan with regard to the fact that the workman in fact was employed as daily wager farm labour and on some occasion he was asked to perform duties of Clerk-Cum-Typist. Shri Barot submitted that the Court may pass appropriate order in view of above facts. 5. This Court has heard learned counsels of the parties and perused the papers produced on record, including the award passed by the Labour Court. This Court is unable to accept the submission of Shri Barot as the workman concerned has lastly performed his duties as Clerk-Cum-Typing before his termination, therefore he is bound to be reinstated on the post of Clerk-Cum-Typist. There is no daily wager post of Clerk-Cum-Typist according to the counsel for the petitioner. The statement produced by Shri Chauhan which was also produced before the Labour Court and which the Labour Court also taken into consideration go to show that the concerned workman- respondent herein has been working as farm labour and only on few occasion he was asked to discharge duties as Clerk-Cum-Typist to meet with some exigency. The terms of Reference are to be in the context with the original employment on which the workman was working. The award therefore deserves to be suitably modified as the Labour Court has not taken into consideration vital aspects of the case. 6. In view of this, the award deserves to be modified and the direction of reinstating the workman to the post of Daily Wager Clerk-Cum-Typist deserves to be modified to the extent that the “workman be reinstated on the post he held in the petitioner University” and it will be the discretion of the SCA/3776/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT University to take appropriate work, keeping in mind the fact that the workman had been engaged for a particular work. 7. The petition therefore partly succeeds. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. However, there shall be no order as to cost. [ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn