Gujarat High Court
Rekhaben Rameshbhai Parmar vs Chief Officer, Mangrol Nagarpalika on 7 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10845/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10845 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
REKHABEN RAMESHBHAI PARMAR
Versus
CHIEF OFFICER, MANGROL NAGARPALIKA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MINI M NAIR(2689) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.ADITYA DAVDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
HARSHESH R KAKKAD(7813) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Kakkad waives notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1. Learned AGP Mr.Davda waives notice of Rule on behalf of State.
2. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging (i) the judgment and award dated 15.10.2024 passed by the learned Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 22:12:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10845/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Review Application No. 1 of 2023 in Reference (IT) No. 43 of 2020; and (ii) the award dated 31.08.2023 passed by the learned Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 43 of 2020, which came to be declared on 12.09.2023, whereby the reference filed by the present petitioner came to be dismissed.
3. It is the case of the present petitioner that she was employed as a Daily Wager on the post of Tedagar/Pattawala with the Balmandir Division of the respondent-Nagarpalika since 01.01.2016, and had completed 240 days of service in each calendar year. The petitioner holds a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree and was being paid monthly wages. Seeking benefits of regularization, the petitioner approached the concerned Union, which in turn issued a notice dated 10.02.2020 to the respondent-Nagarpalika, demanding the grant of regular pay scale and all consequential benefits of permanency. As no reply was received from the respondent-Nagarpalika, the dispute was taken before the learned Labour Commissioner by filing a complaint, which ultimately culminated in a reference being made to the learned Industrial Tribunal. In support of her Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 22:12:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10845/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined claim for regularization as well as to support her oral evidence, the petitioner produced documentary evidence including: (i) salary bills for the months of July and August, 2021; (ii) EPF contribution records for the period from October, 2017 to December, 2022; and (iii) bank statements for the period from February to December, 2016 and from January to December, 2021. However, the learned Industrial Tribunal, after considering the material on record-- more particularly the cross-examination of the petitioner--dismissed the reference, primarily on the ground that the averments made in the statement of claim were not duly supported by the petitioner in her cross-examination, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Ms.Mini Nair for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Harshesh Kakkad for the respondent No.1.
5. Learned Advocate Ms. Nair, appearing for the petitioner, submits that although the petitioner possesses a graduate-level educational qualification, she resides in a small village and lacked awareness regarding the consequences of cross-examination. It is further Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 22:12:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10845/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined submitted by learned advocate Ms. Nair that the petitioner, without fully understanding the questions posed to her during cross-examination, inadvertently responded in the negative, which was misconstrued by the learned Tribunal and formed the sole basis for dismissal of the reference. Learned advocate Ms. Nair further submits that if the matter is remanded to the learned Industrial Tribunal with a direction to permit the petitioner to lead fresh evidence, the ends of justice would be met. Learned advocate Ms. Nair points out that the impugned award is solely based on certain responses in cross-examination, and no other cogent reasons have been recorded by the learned Tribunal while rejecting the petitioner's claim. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned award deserves to be set aside, and the present petition deserves to be allowed.
6. In response, learned Advocate Mr. Kakkad, appearing for the respondent-Nagarpalika, submits that the petitioner herself, during the course of cross- examination, admitted that she could not recollect the name of the Principal under whom she was allegedly working as a Tedagar, nor did she have knowledge about Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 22:12:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10845/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined the Balmandir where she claimed to have been employed. It is further submitted that the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner in support of the claim for salary payments was also denied. In this background, learned advocate Mr. Kakkad contends that no error has been committed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in dismissing the reference, and therefore, no interference is called for.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it emerges that in support of the claim for regular pay and benefits of permanency, the petitioner had placed on record various documentary evidence, including bank statements and salary slips. Despite this, during her cross-examination, the petitioner stated that she did not possess any documentary proof of salary payments and could not recollect the name of the Principal or the Balmandir where she was allegedly employed. It further appears from the record that the petitioner was not made aware of the consequences of cross-examination and did not properly understand the implications of the questions posed to her. Although the petitioner's claim Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 22:12:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10845/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined was otherwise supported by documentary evidence, the learned Industrial Reference Court has dismissed the reference solely on the basis of her cross-examination.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, it would be in the interest of justice to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence afresh. Accordingly, the present petition succeeds. The impugned award is hereby quashed and set aside. Reference (IT) No. 43 of 2020 is restored to its original file and is remanded to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, for fresh adjudication, after permitting both parties to lead fresh evidence.
9. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, except on the limited aspect discussed hereinabove. The learned Industrial Tribunal shall decide the reference independently and in accordance with law, based solely on the evidence that may be adduced by both the parties.
10. Rule made absolute accordingly.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 22:12:38 IST 2025