Gujarat High Court
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. ... vs Deputy Labour Commissioner on 28 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2707/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2707 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. THROUGH ANIL
RAMESHKUMAR KUMAR
Versus
DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KEYUR GANDHI WITH MR NISARG DESAI WITH MS.PRAVALIKHA
BATTHINIGANDHI LAW ASSOCIATES(12275) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MRUNAL DHOLARIA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
IG JOSHI(8726) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 28/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the learned Labour Commissioner, Vadodara in Conciliation Case No.310 of 2023, on the ground that no industrial dispute exists between the parties as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:25:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2707/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined Disputes Act, 1947 ('the I.D.Act' referred hereinafter), since respondent No.3 does not fall within the definition of 'workman' as provided under Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacturing of specialized pharmaceutical products, and respondent No.3 is an ex-employee of the petitioner, who approached the appropriate Government by raising an industrial dispute alleging illegal termination of service by the petitioner. It is submitted that respondent No.3 was working as a Senior Executive/Manager - Administration (Supervisor) in the petitioner company, drawing a monthly salary of ₹76,368/-. Considering the nature of duties performed by respondent No.3, he does not fall within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act.
2.1. It is further the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 had voluntarily resigned from the service by submitting his resignation through the employee portal using his individual user ID and password on 08.08.2023, and he was accordingly relieved by the petitioner company on the same day after payment of ₹4,43,468/- towards full and final settlement of dues. Hence, there exists no Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:25:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2707/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined industrial dispute, nor is there any apprehension of such dispute, and despite that, the learned Labour Commissioner has erroneously referred the same to the Labour Court, Vadodara.
2.2. Accordingly, the present petition is filed challenging the order dated 05.12.2023, passed by the learned Labour Commissioner, Vadodara in Conciliation Case No.310 of 2023, whereby the dispute has been referred for adjudication.
3. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Keyur Gandhi for the petitioner, learned Advocate Mr. Ishan Joshi for the respondent, and learned AGP Mr. Dholaria for the State.
4. Learned Advocate Mr.Gandhi for the petitioner submits that, after receiving the amount towards full and final settlement of benefits payable on 06.09.2023, respondent No.3 filed a complaint before the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner, Vadodara, challenging his separation from the petitioner company. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Gandhi that the said complaint was filed after a delay of approximately three months from the date of resignation, alleging that the resignation was forged and had been submitted by an official of the Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:25:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2707/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined petitioner-company.
4.1. Learned advocate advocate Mr.Gandhi further submits that respondent No.3 approached the Cyber Crime Police Station, Vadodara, claiming that he had not submitted the resignation; however, the said claim was rejected by the Cyber Crime Police. It is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Gandhi that the petitioner filed a detailed reply on 27.10.2023, contending that respondent No.3 was discharging duties in a managerial and administrative capacity, and therefore, did not fall within the definition of 'workman'. The petitioner also elaborated on the nature of duties performed by respondent No.3 and submitted 35 documents in support of the said contentions. However, without appreciating the reply and the supporting documents, the learned authority proceeded to pass the order of Reference. In view of the above submissions, learned advocate Mr.Gandhi submits that the said order deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present petition.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Joshi appearing for respondent No.3 submits that the order of Reference has been challenged solely on the ground that Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:25:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2707/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined respondent No.3 does not fall within the definition of 'workman' as provided under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that the learned Commissioner, while performing an administrative function under the Act, is not empowered to examine documents or adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact or law. Therefore, instead of making any determination on such issues which fall outside the scope of the Commissioner's administrative authority, the Commissioner rightly proceeded to pass the Reference order.
5.1. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi further submits that the question as to whether respondent No.3 qualifies as a 'workman' under the I.D.Act, based on the material on record, is a matter to be adjudicated by the learned labour Court after appreciating the evidence and providing reasonable opportunity to both parties. Hence, no illegality or infirmity can be said to have been committed by the learned Commissioner in referring the dispute to the Labour Court.
6. Learned AGP Mr. Dholaria, appearing for the respondent-State, submits that the primary role of the Conciliation Officer is to encourage mediation between the parties and promote settlement of the Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:25:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2707/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined industrial dispute. The Conciliation Officer does not have the authority to adjudicate the matter on merits or examine evidence pertaining to the industrial dispute. While dealing with a complaint, the Conciliation Officer is discharging an administrative function, and accordingly, the dispute was referred to the Industrial Court based on the complaint filed under Section 2A of the I.D.Act.
6.1. It is further submitted by learned AGP Mr. Dholaria that it is only the learned Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, under Sections 7 and 7A of the I.D.Act respectively, that has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. Therefore, the Commissioner rightly refrained from delving into the factual matrix and passed the Reference Order.
6.2. Learned AGP Mr.Dholaria further submits that the question as to whether respondent No.3 qualifies as a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act involves factual consideration and cannot be determined without proper adjudication. Such a determination falls within the purview of the learned Labour Court during the course of adjudication.
Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:25:38 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2707/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined 6.3. Learned AGP Mr.Dholaria submits that the scope of Section 2A is broad and comprehensive in nature, and therefore, the complaint filed by respondent No.3 requires full adjudication after allowing both parties to lead evidence. Consequently, no illegality or infirmity can be attributed to the action of the learned Commissioner in referring the dispute to the Labour Court.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and on perusal of the record, it emerges that the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner, vide order dated 28.11.2013, referred the matter to the learned Labour Court, Vadodara, for adjudication with the following terms:
"Whether Mr. Devendra Pathak is required to be reinstated on his original post with continuity of service and back wages or not? "
8. The terms of Reference have been challenged on two grounds: first, that the respondent does not fall within the definition of 'workman' under the I.D Act; and second, that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service and accepted all his dues.
Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:25:38 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2707/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined Insofar as the first ground raised in the memorandum of petition is concerned, this Court has taken note of the decisions relied upon by both the parties, which are as follows:
(1) Lakhtariya Premjibhai Narsinhbhai vs. Union of India, reported in 2001 (0) AIJEL-HC 206712, (2) Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Maharashtra and anr., reported in (2014) 16 SCC 623, (3) Sultan Singh vs. State of Haryana and anr, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 66, (4) Secretary, Indian Tea Association vs. Ajit Kumar Barat and others, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 93, (5) Prabhakar vs. Joint Director, Sericulture De(1) Lakhtariya Premjibhai Narsinhbhai vs. Union of India, reported in 2001 (0) AIJEL-HC 206712, (2) Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Maharashtra and anr., reported in (2014) 16 SCC 623, (3) Sultan Singh vs. State of Haryana and anr, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 66, (4) Secretary, Indian Tea Association vs. Ajit Kumar Barat and others, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 93, (5)partment and Anr,reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1, (6) Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. XYZ and others, reported in 2025-II-LLJ 85(Guj.), (7) Man Sukh Lal Rawal and others vs. Union of India and others, reported in 1999 (50) DRJ (DB), Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:25:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2707/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined (8) State of Madras vs. C.P.Sarathy and Anr, reported in (1952) 2 SCC 606, (9) Kalpatru Projects International Limited vs. State of Gujarat an ors, (Special Civil Application No.12023 of 2024) (10) Modex Trading India Private Limited vs. Jitix Laxmanbhai Rathod and ors, (Special Civil Application No.15060 of 2024)
9. As per the law laid down in the aforementioned decisions, it emerges that Section 10 of the I.D Act permits the appropriate Government to determine whether a dispute exists or is apprehended, and thereafter to refer it for adjudication on merits. Further, Section 12(5) of the I.D.Act imposes an obligation on the Government to record reasons only in cases where it decides not to make a reference and to communicate such reasons to the concerned parties. However, there is no such obligation on the Government to provide reasons when a reference is made. The functions of Reference and Adjudication operate in two distinct spheres under the jurisdiction of different authorities. While acting within the domain of Reference, the Government must refrain from entering into the adjudicatory domain. The Government is not vested with the authority to adjudicate upon the merits of the dispute; it is only required to assess whether a dispute exists or is Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:25:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2707/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined apprehended, without deciding any part of the dispute itself.
10. If the dispute qualifies as an industrial dispute as defined under the I.D.Act, then the factual existence of such dispute and the expediency of making a Reference in the circumstances of a particular case are matters entirely within the domain of the appropriate Government. On both counts, namely, the existence of an industrial dispute and the expediency of referring it for adjudication the Government is the sole judge.
11. In the present case, the dispute was raised under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, which provides that in cases of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment, or termination of one or more workmen, the concerned workman may raise an individual dispute.
12. In the opinion of this Court, if an industrial dispute is raised by an individual workman under Section 2A(2) of the I.D.Act, the workman is entitled to make an application directly to the learned Labour Court or the Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein, after the expiry of 45 days from the date of filing an application before the Conciliation Officer Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:25:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2707/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined of the appropriate Government. On receipt of such application, the learned Labour Court or the Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction and power to adjudicate the dispute as if it had been referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of the I.D.Act. Since the respondent has disputed the material placed on record by the petitioner, both in relation to his status as a workman and the issue of alleged resignation, such issues are required to be scrutinized and adjudicated upon by the competent Court at the time of final adjudication.
13. It is true that, under the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the management and the concerned individual is a sine qua non for treating the latter as a workman entitled to claim relief against the former. However, the appropriate Government is not empowered to record findings on the merits of the case and reject the Reference on that basis. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order of Reference cannot be interfered with merely on the ground that the respondent is not a 'workman' as defined under the I.D.Act relying on disputed material placed by the petitioner. Since that issue is required to be adjudicated upon by the learned Labour Court after Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:25:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2707/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined proper application of judicial mind and appreciation of evidence.
14. When the appropriate Government makes reference of industrial dispute for adjudication, it does not decide the question of fact or law. The only condition, which the exercise of that power should satisfy, is that there should be existence of or apprehension of an industrial dispute. The employee employer relationship is the very foundation of jurisdiction of learned Court and it has to be determined on the basis of conclusive evidence evidence on full consideration of all aspect of matter.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no error can be found in the administrative decision of the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner in referring the dispute to the learned Labour Court, Vadodara. The question as to whether the respondent No.3 qualifies as a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as well as the genuineness or otherwise of the alleged resignation, are disputed questions of fact which can only be determined upon adjudication by the appropriate forum. Hence, the present petition fails and deserves to be dismissed.
Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:25:38 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2707/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined
16. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. However, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the learned Labour Court shall decide the Reference strictly on merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:25:38 IST 2025