STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST vs RATILAL VIRABHAI THAKOR
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/5737/2026 (GJHC240296192026) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5737 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
Versus
RATILAL VIRABHAI THAKOR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. SIDDHARTH DESAI ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PH PATHAK(665) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS REENA M KAMANI(6007) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SHREE P PATHAK(13126) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 25/08/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for following
reliefs :-
(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow
the present petition;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set
aside the order passed in Recovery 33(C)(2) No. 06 of 2019
dated 17.10.2025 [ANNEXURE-A] and all subsequent
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:52:39 IST 2026
C/SCA/5737/2026 (GJHC240296192026) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
proceedings thereof;
(C) Pending the hearing your lordship be please to stay the
order passed in Recovery 33(C) (2) No. 06 of 2019dated
17.10.2025: [ANNEXURE-A] and all subsequent
proceedings thereof,
(D) Be please to pass any further order.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate for the
respondent waives service of Rule on behalf of the
respondent.
3. Heard learned AGP Mr. Siddharth Desai for the
petitioner and learned advocate Mr. P.H Pathak for the
respondent.
4. Upon joint request of learned advocates for the
parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing.
5. Brief facts fo the case are as under :-
The petitioner has challenged the legality of the
order dated 17.10.2025 passed in Recovery Application
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:52:39 IST 2026
C/SCA/5737/2026 (GJHC240296192026) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
33 (C) (2) No. 6 of 2019 passed by learned Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Mehsana. The Recovery
Application came to be allowed and the respondent
workman was directed to get an amount of Rs.
6,99,840/-.
6. It is the contention of learned AGP that the
workman was working as a Daily Wager-Watchman since
1985. It is submitted that Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988 is not applicable to the respondent
workman. It is also submitted by learned AGP that
without getting pre-existing right adjudicated, workman
approached the learned Labour Court under Section 33
(C) (2) of the Act, which is not permissible. It is further
contended that without approaching the Labour Court to
consider the benefits equivalent to the permanent daily
wagers working under the Forest Department, the
Labour Court would have lacked jurisdiction and
committed an error by granting application. No other
submissions are made except above.
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:52:39 IST 2026
C/SCA/5737/2026 (GJHC240296192026) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
7. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent
workman has supported the judgment and award and
has contended that the witness of the petitioners has
admitted in cross-examination that the workman was
working with the petitioner since 1985 and there is no
record available with regard to showing his continuity in
service. The contention of learned advocate for the
respondent workman is that in absence of any question
as to non-existence of pre-existing right, it was not
obligatory on the part of the learned Labour Court to go
into the aspect of existence of pre-existing right of
workman. No other submissions are made except above.
8. I have considered the submissions canvassed by
learned advocates for the parties and perused papers on
record. Workman filed recovery application under Section
33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming
applicability of Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988. Workman claimed that he has been working
as Watchman Since 1985. Workman prayed for wages for
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:52:39 IST 2026
C/SCA/5737/2026 (GJHC240296192026) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
the period between 2010 to 2018. Petitioner did not
produce any evidence with regard to the Workman
having not worked continuously from the date of
appointment till the date of claim of benefits as per G.R
dated 17.10.1988. The short question involved in the
present petition is that the learned Labour Court,
according to learned AGP passed an order without
adjudicating any pre-existing right.
Section 33 (C) (2) is reproduced for convenience :-
“2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the
employer any money or any benefit which is capable of
being computed in terms of money and if any question
arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount
at which such benefit should be computed, then the
question may, subject to any rules that may be made
under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may
be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government
[within a period now exceeding three months]:
2. [Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:52:39 IST 2026
C/SCA/5737/2026 (GJHC240296192026) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
Court considers necessary or expedient so to do, he may,
for reasons to be recorded in writing extend such period by
such further period as he may think fit.]”
9. The said provision mandates that workman is
entitled to receive any money or any benefit which is
capable of being computed in terms of money, in case
any question arises at the amount of money due or as to
the amount as to which the benefit should be computed,
such question be decided by Labour Court. The
provision, therefore, mandates that there has to be a
question with regard to the computation of amount of
money due or as to the amount at which such benefit
should be computed. Therefore, the legislature has with
clear intent inserted words “questions” arise in the
proceedings. In the present proceedings, on perusal of
the reply produced at page No. 24 of the compilation, it
does not indicate any dispute being raised by petitioner
with regard to non-entitlement of any amount of money
due without prior adjudication. It is also not the
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:52:39 IST 2026
C/SCA/5737/2026 (GJHC240296192026) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
contention of petitioner that there does not exist any
pre-existing right in favour of workman. It is also not the
contention of the petitioner that the question requires
adjudication by the learned Labour Court. In absence of
any specific defense with regard to adjudication of any
pre-existing right, the petitioner at this stage cannot
raise the contention of the non-adjudication of any pre-
existing right. The learned Labour Court has recorded in
the judgment that the witness of the petitioner has
admitted that the workman has been working with the
petitioner. In the written statement it is a specific
contention of the petitioner that the workman has been
working with the petitioner and has been paid the wages
as per Government norms. The petitioner’s witness
though stated in the cross-examination that he is ready
and willing to produce service record pertaining to
workman. However, no such documents were produced.
The petitioner has also failed to establish that the
workman has failed to prove continuity in service.
Therefore, on appreciation of evidence the learned
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:52:39 IST 2026
C/SCA/5737/2026 (GJHC240296192026) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
Labour Court observed that the workman is entitled to
benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
10. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the
findings of Labour Court as there was no dispute or
question raised by the petitioner with regard to either
adjudication of any pre-existing right. Petition lacks
merit and therefore, the same is dismissed.
11. The petitioner shall comply with the impugned
judgment and order within period of 8 weeks from the
date of receipt of the order. Rule is discharged.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
MARY VADAKKAN
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:52:39 IST 2026