Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bhupatsinh Navalsinh Vadher on 8 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9489/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9489 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
BHUPATSINH NAVALSINH VADHER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.DIXA PANDYA, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR CHINTAN N DESAI(9940) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 08/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the learned Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference Case No.2 of 2018, whereby the directions were issued upon the present petitioners to reinstate the respondent - workman with 10% back wages and continuity of service.
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:29:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9489/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined
2. It is the case of the present petitioners that as per the claim made by the respondent, he was working with the petitioners since 01.04.2002 as a daily wager and drawing the salary of Rs.8,300/- per month. His service was orally terminated on 01.07.2017, which was challenged before the learned Reference Court by raising the dispute and the same was registered as Reference Case No.2 of 2018. The respondent has filed the statement of claim and the petitioner has filed the written statement and learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence adduced, has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned AGP Ms.Pandya for the State and learned advocate Mr.Desai for the respondent.
4. Learned AGP Ms.Pandya has submitted that no evidence was adduced by the respondent - workman to show the continuity of service as defined under Section 25(B) of the Act. Learned AGP Ms.Pandya submits that only on drawing the adverse inference, the impugned award was passed granting the benefits of reinstatement along with 10% back wages. Learned AGP Ms.Pandya submits that Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:29:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9489/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined it is the duty of the employee to establish the case and filing an affidavit and relying on the own statement, which is in his favour, would not be sufficient to hold that the respondent has completed 240 days service in the preceding year. Learned AGP Ms.Pandya submits that as per his own statement, he did not complete the 240 days in the year 2015-16 as well as in the year 2016- 17 and therefore, also he is not entitled for the relief, which is claimed in the statement of the claim. Learned AGP Ms.Pandya states that without assigning the cogent reasons, the reference was awarded in favour of the present respondent and therefore, the same is required to be interfered with and petition is required to be allowed.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Desai appearing for the respondent submits that the respondents were working on daily wage basis since 01.04.2002 and were getting monthly wages of Rs.8,300/-. On 01.07.2017, without any procedure being followed, his services were terminated. It is submitted that though the respondent had completed 240 days in each year, his services were terminated. Learned advocate Mr.Desai submits that Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:29:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9489/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined production application came to be filed seeking production of wage register, present roaster, cash book etc. for the period of 2002-15 which was not complied with and therefore, learned court is justifying in passing the impugned order, hence no interference is required.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the reasons assigned by the learned Reference Court, it transpires that the dispute was raised challenging the oral termination before the learned Reference Court to show that the respondent has worked continuously from 01.04.2002 to 01.07.2017. In addition to the affidavit in form of chief examination, the production application came to be filed below Exh. 7. The documents, which are sought to be produced are attendance sheet, salary vouchers, hishabi Rojmade, Khatavahi etc., for the period of 2002 to 2017. Though said application was ordered in favour of the present respondent neither the order was complied with nor any affidavit was filed showing the reasons for non- production of the evidence. In addition to that, the respondent has stated, on the basis of the information Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:29:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9489/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined received in the RTI, the details of the presence in the relevant years. It is stated by the respondent that in the year 2002-03, he completed 236 days, in the year 2003- 04, 26 days, in the year 2004-05, 130 days, in the year 2005-06, 128 days, in the year 2006-07, 206 days, in the year 2007-08, 104 days, in the year 2008-09, 150 days, in the year 2009-10, 156 days, in the year 2010- 11, 197 days, in the year 2011-12, 141 days, in the year 2012-13, 148 days, in the year 2013-14, 230 days, in the year 2014-15, 227 days and in the year 2015-16, zero day, as the respondent came into knowledge that he was changed to the out sourcing agency in the year 2015-16. Therefore, complaint was filed that, without his consent, the change was made. The petitioner failed to rebut the above evidence during the cross-examination of the workman. Learned Reference Court, relying on the various decisions, more particularly, in the case of R. M. Yellatti V/s. The Asst. Executive Engineer reported in JT 2005 (9) SC 340, has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent - workman. This Court is of the view that as the petitioner remained failed in complying with the directions issued in the production application Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:29:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9489/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined and failed in rebutting the evidence which was produced by the workman to show the continuity of service, no error has been committed by the learned Reference Court in awarding the reference in favour of the respondent.
7. In that background, this petition being devoid of merits, hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
9. It is expected that the petitioner Authority would comply with the award passed by the learned labour court immediately, preferably within 12 weeks from today.
10. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
11. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:29:35 IST 2025