IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13842 of 2020 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ================================================================ Approved for Reporting Yes No ================================================================ JAYANTIBHAI MERUBHAI PATEL Versus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICES & ANR. ================================================================ Appearance: MR MJ MEHTA(5797) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR SAURABH J MEHTA(2170) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR MRUNAL DHOLARIA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ================================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 05/03/2026 JUDGMENT 1. Present petition is led by the petitioner-workman under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) challenging the judgment and award dated 18.06.2019 passed by the learned Presiding O0cer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to as “the Labour Court”) in Reference (LCV) No. 490 of 2011, whereby, the learned Judge has partly allowed the Reference in favour of the petitioner-workman and granted reinstatement with continuity of service but, without backwages. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, by p. 2 Resolution No. 139 dated 10.06.2010 the respondent No.1 herein deleted the name of the petitioner-workman from the waiting list and muster roll with retrospective e8ect i.e. with e8ect from 13.02.2007 without giving opportunity of hearing and without following due procedure of law. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatis ed with the said action of the respondent No.1, the petitioner-workman led a complaint being IDR Complaint No. 190/2011 dated 13.4.2011 before the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner. Since the conciliation failed, the Assistant Labour Commissioner referred the dispute to the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad to decide the dispute between the parties. That, after the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, the petitioner-workman led his statement of claim alleging that since the petitioner and other similar workmen were deprived of their legitimate rights, all the workmen/employees through their Union led Reference before the learned Industrial Tribunal being Reference (IT) No.71/2005 whereby, certain demands were raised and, therefore, keeping vengeance in mind, the Respondent No.1 created certain false evidences and lastly by Resolution dated 10.06.2010, the petitioner's name was deleted from the muster roll and from waiting list and thus, the petitioner came to be terminated without following due procedure of law and, therefore, the petitioner had led the aforesaid reference before the Labour Court praying to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages and with continuity of service. That, in response to the Statement of Claim led by the petitioner-workman, the respondent No.1 led written statement before the Labour Court denying the submissions made in Statement of Claim in toto. After hearing all the concerned parties and after examining the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record, the Labour Court passed the impugned judgment and award dated 18.06.2019 in Reference p. 3 (LCV) No. 490 of 2011, whereby, the learned Judge partly allowed the Reference as aforesaid. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned judgment and award dated 18.06.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCV) No. 490 of 2011, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 4. On 05.11.2020, this petition is admitted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 5. At the outset, learned counsel Mr. Deep D. Vyas, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 – Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Services, has submitted that this is a cross petition led by the workman and in another cross petition being Special Civil Application No. 13844 of 2020 led by the similarly situated workman against the very same award dated 18.06.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, this Court has rejected the petition vide order dated 05.11.2020 and therefore, the present petition is also required to be dismissed in the same line. 6. In view of above and considering the fact that, the petition led by the respondent herein being Special Civil Application No. 16148 of 2020 challenging the very same award dated 18.06.2019, wherein, this Court has granted lump sum compensation in favour of the workman, the present petition is not required to be entertained and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly