Gujarat High Court
V-Mart Retail Limited Through Manager ... vs Jitendra Dhulabhai Rana on 15 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7111/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7111 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
V-MART RETAIL LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER HR DILEEPKUMAR
OMPRAKASH SRIVASTAVA
Versus
JITENDRA DHULABHAI RANA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.SUNIL.S.AGARKAR for LEXSTREET ADVISORS LLP(14629) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
ROBIN PRASAD(9344) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 15/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed challenging the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference (T) No.383 of 2013 dated 31.12.2018 whereby, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent workman to its original post with 50% back wages and the action of the petitioner, transferring the Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Apr 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 17 22:29:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7111/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined present respondent is held illegal.
2. At the out set the grievance was raised by learned advocate Mr.Sunil.S.Agarkar for the petitioner that while referring to the dispute before the learned reference court, the terms were not framed and that is observed by the learned labour court in paragraph No.1. To verify the above statement, learned AGP Ms.Bhati was called for the instructions wherein, learned AGP Ms.Bhati has placed on record various facts which are not disclosed by the petitioner in the petition which is mentioned herein below:-
a) The dispute was raised with regard to the termination and the change of service conditions under section 10(1) before the Assistant Labour commissioner on 11.02.2013 wherein, learned Assistant Labour Commissioner has issued Notice, calling both the parties on 15.02.2013 and 25.02.2013. Thereafter, failure report was submitted by learned Assistant Labour Commissioner on 05.03.2013 and dispute thereafter, was referred to the learned labour court on 22.04.2013 on referring the order passed on 22.04.2013, it appears that the terms of reference Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Apr 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 17 22:29:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7111/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined were framed "that whether the respondent Jitendrabhai Dhulabhai Rana is entitled for the relief of reinstatement alongwith all the consequential benefits or not?"
b) Referring to the order passed by the learned labour court in Reference (T) No.383 of 2013 dated 27.11.2014, it emerges that in the first paragraph itself, terms of reference were mentioned.
c) As the aforesaid award was passed ex-parte, therefore, application under Rule 26 A being Miscellaneous Application No.73 of 2015 came to be filed which was allowed in favour of the present petitioner with the cost of Rs.5,000/-.
3. The caption petition filed challenging the award passed by the learned labour court on 31.12.2018, without disclosing the above facts and annexing the previous order passed in the reference dated 27.11.2014 and order passed in Miscellaneous Application No.73 of 2015 and contrary statement was made that without referring to the terms, dispute was referred. This Court is of the view that non disclosing of the above material facts and annexing the previous order would be suppression of Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Apr 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 17 22:29:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7111/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2025 undefined material fact and this type of practice is required to be deprecated.
4. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petition deserves to be dismissed with the cost of Rs.10,000/- for suppressing the material facts.
5. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
6. The petitioner is directed to deposit the cost before this Court within a period of two weeks from today.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Apr 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 17 22:29:29 IST 2025