Arvindbhai Vanmalibhai Bhatt vs The Manager, Sehthnu Derasar, Vsha ...

Gujarat High Court

Arvindbhai Vanmalibhai Bhatt vs The Manager, Sehthnu Derasar, Vsha ... on 4 August, 2025

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/10692/2025                                    ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025

                                                                                                                undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10692 of 2025

                       ==========================================================
                                        ARVINDBHAI VANMALIBHAI BHATT
                                                    Versus
                              THE MANAGER, SEHTHNU DERASAR, VSHA SHRIMALI & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       HARSHIT M KARATHIA(7916) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

                                                      Date : 04/08/2025

                                                          ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 05.04.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (T) No.224 of 2019, whereby the Reference filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Poojari with the respondent-Derasar and was being paid a salary of Rs.4,000/-. The petitioner claims to have been serving since the year 1976 and was consistently paid the aforesaid amount. However, in the year 2018, the respondent abruptly stopped paying his salary, prompting the petitioner to file a complaint before the learned Commissioner.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10692/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined The matter was thereafter referred to the learned Labour Court, resulting in Reference (T) No.224 of 2019. Considering the submissions of both sides, the learned Labour Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish that he fell within the scope of the definition under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the I.D.Act' referred hereinafter), and accordingly, no relief was granted. The said award is under challenge in the present petition. The same is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

3. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Harshit Karathia for the petitioner.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Karathia submits that it is not disputed by the respondent that the petitioner had been serving since 1976 and that salary was being paid by the respondent-Derasar. He further submits that no evidence has been adduced by the respondent to demonstrate that the respondent does not fall within the definition of "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned advocate Mr. Karathia contends that the learned Labour Court has committed an error in shifting the burden upon the petitioner to establish that the respondent falls within the definition of "industry", and therefore, the impugned award deserves to be interfered with and Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:42:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10692/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined the petition is required to be allowed.

5. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned advocate Mr. Karathia for the petitioner and upon perusal of the reasons recorded by the learned Labour Court, it emerges that the petitioner had claimed to be serving as a Poojari since 1976 and that his services were terminated with effect from 15.01.2018. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Labour Court on the ground that the Derasar is not engaged in any systematic activity, nor is it driven by profit motive or any gainful objective, and therefore, does not fall within the ambit of the definition of "industry" as contemplated under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. From the record, it appears that the petitioner failed to establish that the activities carried out by the respondent meet the criteria prescribed under Section 2(j) of the Act. In the absence of any evidence in this regard, the learned Labour Court, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Others v. R. Rajappa & Others, reported in 1978 LLJ 349, has rightly held that the respondent does not fall within the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10692/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined

6. Considering the reasons recorded by the learned Labour Court, this Court does not find any infirmity or perversity in the findings so arrived at. In view thereof, the petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.

(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:42:17 IST 2025