Gujarat High Court
Sadabhai Nathabhai Parmar vs Deputy Executive Engineer on 2 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4150 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
SADABHAI NATHABHAI PARMAR
Versus
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ND SONGARA(2198) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS JANHVI N SONGARA(13254) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 02/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 01.06.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Palanpur, in Reference (LCB) No.35 of 2017, whereby the Reference filed by the petitioner came to be rejected.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that a dispute was raised before the learned labour court, which came to be registered, wherein the statement of claim was filed Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 21:24:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined alleging that the respondent had illegally terminated the service of the petitioner. It was stated that the petitioner had been continuously serving since 1981 and had completed 240 days of continuous service. It is further alleged that while terminating his service, the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the I.D. Act', hereinafter referred to) was not followed. Therefore, it was prayed that the termination be declared illegal and the respondent be directed to reinstate the petitioner-workman.
3. Against the statement of claim, a written statement came to be filed before the learned labour court, and after considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, the learned labour court has rejected the Reference, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Songara for the petitioner.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Songara submits that learned Reference Court has committed an error in dismissing the Reference on the ground of delay of 18 years in filing the same. Learned advocate Mr.Songara further submits that though continuous service was duly proved by the present petitioner, instead of awarding lump sum compensation, as was awarded in the identical Reference filed by the co-employee, the Reference came to be rejected. Learned advocate Mr.Songara has relied on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 21:24:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined of Uttarakhand Versus Rajkumar reported in 2019 (14) SCC 353 and submitted that in the said case, the Apex Court has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- compensation for the tenure of two years of service. It is submitted that without considering the above aspect, learned Reference court has dismissed the reference and therefore, same is required to be set aside and the petition is required to be allowed.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, it emerges from the record that, in order to prove continuous service, reliance was placed on the documentary evidence produced below Mark 25/1/1 to 25/1/2, which are the documentary evidences obtained during the RTI proceedings. Learned Reference Court has examined the said evidences and observed that the said information was sought by one co- employee, namely, Hasmukhbhai, who had also filed a separate Reference alleging the illegal termination. Learned Reference Court has examined Hemrajbhai Dungarbhai Chaudhary below Exh.24, who is the Deputy Executive Engineer in the respondent department and has deposed that the petitioner was serving in the year 1993, 1994 and 1995. However, he pointed out discrepancies in the muster roll produced by the petitioner and stated that alterations had been made, allegedly in connivance with staff members, in order to falsely establish continuity of service. The said witness further deposed that the muster roll initially produced at Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 21:24:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined Mark 25/1/1 was directed to be filed, and thereafter, a new muster roll was prepared and produced at Mark 25/1/2, wherein the continuous service of the present petitioner could not be established.
7. It is further deposed by the said witness that seniority list which is produced below Mark 27/2 and as per the claim made in the statement of claim, the name of the present petitioner was figured at serial No.109 appears to be a half document as after serial No.168 directly the serial No.200 is reflected in the said seniority list and from serial Nos.169 to 199, the pages were missing. The respondent has produced documentary evidence in compliance of the order passed under the production application below Mark 12/1 wherein, the name of the present petitioner was shown at serial No.53 and except in the year 1991, where he has completed 259 days, in none of the year, the continuous service as required under section 25(B) of the I.D.Act is completed. As per the said document the petitioner has completed 109 days in the year 1998 and 10 days of service in the year 1999 and as per the allegation made in the statement of claim, termination was done on 31.05.1999. As the petitioner failed to establish the requirement of section 25(B) of the I.D.Act therefore, learned reference court has held that there is no retrenchment as alleged under section 25(F) of the I.D.Act.
8. In addition to that learned Reference court has dismissed Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 21:24:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined the Reference on the ground of delay of 18 years as after the so called termination on 31.05.1999, the Reference was filed on 11.04.2018, which is after more than eighteen years. Relying on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and another, reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 learned Reference court has come to the conclusion that the dispute cannot be said to be a live dispute as petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence to show that the petitioner has made attempt to resume the duties or made any representation. In that background, the learned Reference court has held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the reference.
9. The reliance which was placed on the Reference of the co-employees, namely Hasmukhbhai Hirabhai Sarodariya, if one would prefer then it appears that the said employee has established his completion of 240 days on the basis of the documentary evidence. In addition to that, learned Reference court has drawn the adverse inference as the employer did not produce the documentary evidence, though it was admitted in the possession during the cross-examination. In that background, the relief of reinstatement was molded with the relief of lump sum compensation by the learned Reference Court. The same is not the case of the petitioner, therefore, petitioner cannot claim any parity with the aforesaid award.
Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 21:24:22 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined
10. In addition to that, judgment which was relied in the case of Rajkumar (supra), if it would be referred, then in that case also termination was found illegal due to procedural defect and therefore, learned Industrial Court has held that there is a violation of section 25(F) of the I.D.Act and instead of granting the relief of reinstatement, monetary compensation of Rs.30,000/- was awarded by the learned Reference Court which was enhanced by the Apex Court up to Rs.1,00,000/-.
11. As in the instant case, the petitioner fails to establish the breach of section 25(F) of the I.D.Act, this Court did not find any error committed by the leaned reference court in dismissing the Reference.
12. Resultantly this petition is dismissed. The award dated 01.06.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Palanpur, in Reference (LCB) No.35 of 2017 is hereby confirmed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 21:24:22 IST 2025