THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER ST VADODARA DIVISION vs THE GENERAL SECRETARY, S T MAJDUR SANGH (BMS)
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/3357/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3357 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER ST VADODARA DIVISION
Versus
THE GENERAL SECRETARY, S T MAJDUR SANGH (BMS)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DHWANI CHANDARANA ADVOCATE with
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
ANURADHA G RATHOD(7717) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR GK RATHOD(2386) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 30/06/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, 1950 by the petitioner challenging
the order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (I.T.) No. 202/2019
praying for following reliefs:-
"A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow
this petition;
B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
Page 1 of 11
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 17:04:40 IST 2026
C/SCA/3357/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
direction by quashing and setting aside the order dated
12.09.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (I.T.) No.202/2019 at
Annexure-A to this petition;
C. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this
petition, be pleased to stay the execution,
implementation and operation of the order dated
12.09.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial
Ι.Τ.) No.202/2019 at Τ.) No.202/2019 at
Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference ( . .) No.202/2019 at
Annexure-A to this petition;
D. Be pleased to grant any other relief/s as may
deem fit proper, in the interest of justice."
2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Dhwani Chandarana on
behalf of learned advocate Sejal K. Mandavia for the petitioner
and learned advocate Ms. Anuradha G. Rathod for the
respondent No.1.
3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms.
Anuradha G. Rathod waives service of notice of rule on behalf
of respondent No.1. With the consent of parties, the matter is
taken up for final disposal today itself.
4. Brief facts of the present case are as under:-
4.1. The respondent employee was appointed as a driver on
7.9.2010. On 23.4.2011, the employee gave an application with
Page 2 of 11
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 17:04:40 IST 2026
C/SCA/3357/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
certificate issued by Neurocare Clinic, Vadodara inter alia
stating that he is unable to drive the bus due to his health
issue. The request was made to give him a light duty and re-
categorize him from any other post than driver. On 1.1.2013,
respondent employee was referred to medical examination on
the certificate issued by Jamnabai General Hospital, Vadodara.
The respondent was found to be unfit for the post of driver
and therefore on 20.05.2015, respondent was re-categorized
from the post of driver to watchman.
st
4.2. The respondent-employee was superannuated on 31
March 2016, and thereafter in the year 2019, a reference was
filed by employee claiming wages alongwith other ancillary
benefits from 23.4.2011 upto 1.1.2013. The learned Labour
Court allowed the said application and directed present
petitioner to pay wages and other benefits for the period
between 29.4.2011 upto 1.1.2013. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the judgment and award impugned, petitioner
is before this Court by way of present petition.
Page 3 of 11
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 17:04:40 IST 2026
C/SCA/3357/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the
respondent driver after his appointment on 7.9.2010, from
9.9.2010 without taking approval from superior officer has
remained absent. On 29.4.2011, respondent employee made an
application stating that he is not able to serve as a driver and
he may given a light duty and re-categorize him from the post
of driver. From 29.4.2011 till 1.1.2013, the day on which
respondent was sent to Jamnabai General Hospital, Vadodara
for medical examination, employee remained absent and
therefore on the basis of a report of Corporation, employee
was saddled with punishment of recovering cash amount and
put him on basic scale. On 20.05.2015, Corporation received a
letter from Jamnabai General Hospital, Vadodara, that
respondent employee is not fit for the post of driver.
Therefore, employee was recategorized from the post of driver
th st
to watchman on 24 July 2015. On 31 March, 2016,
employee reached the age of superannuation and after a period
Page 4 of 11
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 17:04:40 IST 2026
C/SCA/3357/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
of three years, reference was filed.
5.1. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal did not consider
the fact that the employee has constantly remained absent upto
29.4.2011 and thereafter upto 1.1.2013 remaining absent
without prior approval is misconduct and flouting of the rules
of service. It is further submitted that a request of re-
categorizing the employee was made almost after six months of
his appointment as a driver. Therefore, the employee himself is
responsible for the delay. It is submitted by learned advocate
for the petitioner that due to administrative exigencies the
application of the employee was forwarded by the Depot
Manager to Divisional Controller, Vadodara on 18.7.2012 and
the employee was directed to go for medical examination on
1.1.2013. There is no malafide intention on the part of the
Corporation in not referring the employee for medical
examination. The delay of three years in raising claim before
the learned Tribunal has not been explained by employee. The
order impugned is erroneous and therefore requires to be
Page 5 of 11
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 17:04:40 IST 2026
C/SCA/3357/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
quashed and set aside. Except above, no other submissions
were made by learned advocate for the petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent has
supported the judgment and award and contended that due to
severe brain illness, vision in eyes was affected, resultantly
employee on 23.3.2011 filed an application with medical
certificate requesting Corporation to recategorize him from the
post of driver to any other post. The application was not
forwarded by the Depot Manager to the Divisional Controller,
Vadodara till 18.7.2012 and thereafter the Divisional Controller
office instead of sending the employee for medical examination
kept silent and on 1.1.2013, the employee was asked to go for
medical examination before Jamnabai General Hospital,
Vadodara. After medical check-up, the hospital issued a
certificate on 14.5.2015 indicating employee not fit for the post
of driver. On the basis of such medical certificate, the
employee was re-categorized and was given duty of a
st
watchman. On 31 March, 2016, employee attained the age of
Page 6 of 11
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 17:04:40 IST 2026
C/SCA/3357/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
superannuation and thereafter till 2018 the case of the
employee was pending before the Conciliating Authority. On
failure in conciliation, the present reference is filed in the year
2019. Therefore, there is no delay on the part of employee in
approaching the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that due to
inaction on the part of the Corporation in not taking a prompt
action on the application, employee could not resume his
duties. There is no willful intention on the part of the
employee in not resuming his duties as a driver.
6.1. It is further submitted that considering the oral
deposition of the parties and more particularly, a gross delay
of almost 21 months in referring the employee for medical
examination, the learned Tribunal has allowed the reference
which is legal. No interference is required on such findings
and therefore the petition be dismissed. Except above, no other
submissions were made by learned advocate for the
respondent.
Page 7 of 11
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 17:04:40 IST 2026
C/SCA/3357/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
7. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and perused papers. The record reveals that the employee was
appointed as driver at Vadodara Division on 7.9.2010. On
29.4.2011, employee filed an application stating that he is not
able to serve as a driver due to brain illness and weak eye
sight. The application was supported a certificate issued by a
Neurosurgeon Mr. Bhavin Upadhyay, who has opined that
employee is not fit for driving vehicles. Therefore, a request
was made by employee on 29.4.2011 to re-categorize him from
the post of driver to any other post. There is no dispute on
the fact that the Depot Manager sent the application of
employee to the Divisional Controller, Vadodra after 15 months
of delay i.e. on 18.7.2012. The said fact is admitted by the
witness of Corporation during the cross-examination. It has
also come on record that the Divisional Controller referred the
employee for medical examination at Jamnabai General
Hospital on 1.1.2013. There is a gross delay on the part of
Corporation in not referring the employee immediately for
Page 8 of 11
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 17:04:40 IST 2026
C/SCA/3357/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
medical examination.
8. The contention raised by learned advocate for the
petitioner that employee constantly remained absent from
duties. It is shocking to know at this stage that an employee
who is having health issue, more particularly ailment of brain
and weak eyesight is expected to continue driving the heavy
motor vehicle at the cost and risk of the passengers who abode
the bus for transportation. However, finding the employee’s
absence as a misconduct punishment orders were passed in
which punishment of recovery cash amount, punishment of
putting employee on basic scale has been passed. The
employee is punished for remaining absent on duties. The
action of the Corporation in not referring the employee for
medical examination for 21 months and sitting tight over the
application is nothing but a malafide intention on the part of
petitioner. The witness has also admitted that the application
of employee was referred after 18 months. The reason
assigned by learned advocate for petitioner for such delay is
Page 9 of 11
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 17:04:40 IST 2026
C/SCA/3357/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
administrative reasons. When this Court raised a query as to
what were the administrative reasons which led to delay of 21
months in not referring the employee for medical examination.
The learned advocate for the petitioner had no answer to such
query. The witness of the Corporation has admitted in his
cross-examination that petitioner cannot be assigned duties as a
driver on the basis of a medical certificate issued by medical
examiner. From the record also, this Court could not find any
administrative reasons whereby the application could not be
forwarded further.
9. Thus, in my view, the employee has wrongly being
denied the salary for the period between 29.04.2011 to
01.01.2013. Moreover, for remaining absent on duties the
employee has already been punished. Therefore, the employee
cannot be doubly punished for the alleged misconduct of
remaining absent from duties. On noticing the order impugned
and keeping in mind the aforesaid facts, I do not find any
perversity or illegality committed by the learned Tribunal. The
Page 10 of 11
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 17:04:40 IST 2026
C/SCA/3357/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2026
judgment and award is just, legal and reasonable.
10. Resultantly, the present petition stands failed and the
same is dismissed. The petitioner is hereby directed to comply
with the award passed by learned Labour Court within period
of four weeks from today failing which petitioner shall pay
interest @ 5% per annum on the amount of arrears of wages
from 12.9.2024 till realization. The present petition stands
dismissed. Rule stands discharged accordingly.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
SHIVANI SHUKLA
Page 11 of 11
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Jul 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 01 17:04:40 IST 2026