Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Solanki Chetan Govindbhai on 14 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11326/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11326 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SOLANKI CHETAN GOVINDBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.FORUM BIMAL SUKHADWALA, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 14/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the judgment and award dated 20.12.2021 passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (T) No.116 of 2018, whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent to his original post, without granting any back wages.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that, as per the Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:31:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11326/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined claim made before the learned Labour Court, the respondent had alleged that he was employed by the petitioner from 13.10.2011 to 30.11.2014 and had completed more than 240 days of continuous service. It was further alleged that his services were terminated without following the due procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequently, the respondent raised an industrial dispute seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits, which led to the initiation of Reference (T) No.116 of 2018 before the learned Labour Court. Upon appreciation of the evidence adduced by both parties, the learned Labour Court passed an award in favour of the respondent, directing his reinstatement without back wages. The said award is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
3. Heard learned AGP Ms.Forum Bimal Sukhadwala for the State.
4. Learned AGP Ms.Sukhadwala submits that the learned Labour Court has committed an error in granting the relief of reinstatement without considering the fact that the respondent had not completed 240 days of service in Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:31:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11326/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined each year. Learned AGP Ms.Sukhadwala submits that, as per the respondent's own case, he was engaged as a daily wager, and in the absence of compliance with the essential requirement under Section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the learned Labour Court erred in awarding reinstatement. It is therefore submitted that the impugned award is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside by allowing the present petition.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned AGP and upon perusal of the reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court, it emerges that, pursuant to the reference being filed, the respondent submitted a statement of claim at Exh.7, alleging that he was appointed as a Computer Operator on 13.10.2011 and had worked continuously up to 30.11.2014. He further alleged that, despite having completed 240 days of continuous service, his services were terminated without following the due procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act. In support of the averments made in the statement of claim, the respondent adduced oral evidence, and the petitioner produced the Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:31:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11326/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined attendance record at Exh.10. Upon referring to the said record, it is evident that the respondent completed 267 days of service during the period from 01.10.2012 to 30.09.2013 and 275 days from 01.10.2013 to 30.11.2014. Since the alleged termination took place on 30.11.2014, the relevant preceding year would be 2013- 14, during which the respondent had completed 275 days of service. On the basis of the established continuous service, it was the respondent's case that the termination was effected without compliance with Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said contention has not been controverted by producing the evidence on record in the nature of notice or retrenchment compensation. The only objection raised by the petitioner was with regard to the delay of three years in raising the dispute. The learned Labour Court, while considering the aspect of delay, allowed the reference by directing reinstatement of the respondent, but without awarding back wages.
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Labour Court has rightly maintained a balance by denying the relief of back wages, taking into account the Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:31:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11326/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined delay of three years in filing the reference. Since the learned Labour Court has passed the award in favour of the respondent after assigning cogent and well-reasoned findings, and this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned award, the petition filed by the State appears to be devoid of merits and accordingly deserves to be dismissed.
7. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:31:40 IST 2025