MANSUKHBHAI DHARAMSHIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the learned Labour Court has directed reinstatement with full back-wages in favour of the petitioner, against the Panchayat, but, the petitioner is before this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that the petitioner was wrongly directed to be reinstated in the services of the Panchayat, while, in fact, in view of the documents annexed with the Writ Application, evidence produced before the learned Labour Court and provisions of the Scheme (to which I will refer little later), the petitioner would be an employee of the Gujarat Electricity Board.

(2.) Shri Satyen Rawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that from the orders of appointment and the mandates issued by the Gujarat Electricity Board, the appointment was made, training was imparted to the petitioner and only thereafter, the petitioner was absorbed in the services. According to him, if the corporate veil is lifted, it will clearly float on the surface of the record that the Gujarat Electricity Board, in fact, is the employer.

(3.) Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned Counsel for the Gujarat Electricity Board, submitted that in absence of sufficient Electrical Helpers or 'Vijligars', a scheme was floated, under which training was to be imparted by the Gujarat Electricity Board and thereafter, such trained persons were to be appointed by the concerned Panchayat after due approval of the Gujarat Electricity Board. She submitted that the scheme has been interpreted in Special Civil Application No.3520 of 1991 and the Division Bench of this Court has held that such Electrical Helpers or 'Vijligars' cannot be taken to be the employees of the Gujarat Electricity Board.