Gujarat High Court
Lok Prakashan Limited vs Thakor Rajeshbhai Popatlal on 30 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1414/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1414 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
LOK PRAKASHAN LIMITED & ANR.
Versus
THAKOR RAJESHBHAI POPATLAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR SWAPNIL H CHAUHAN(5959) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 30/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.675 of 2001 dated 22.11.2019, whereby the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent - workman with 25% back wages.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that a dispute was raised before the learned Reference Court by the respondent - workman, alleging that the respondent was working with the Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1414/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined petitioner - establishment on the post of Machine Operator since the last 24 years and getting the wages of Rs.18,000/-. On raising the demand for a wage rise, his service was terminated on 13.06.2001 and therefore, a complaint was made before the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner. Before the learned Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner had contended that there was no order of termination passed against the present respondent; however, his service was transferred to the Bombay Branch vide communication dated 30.06.2011, where instead of reporting for duty at the said branch, the dispute was raised. The learned Labour Court, on considering the submissions made by the parties as well as the evidence adduced, has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati with learned advocate Mr. Naidu for the petitioner and the learned advocate Mr. Chauhan for the respondent.
4. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Nanavati submits that on being transferred on 30.06.2011, the respondent did not report for duty and though the respondent was informed subsequently Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1414/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined vide a communication dated 11.02.2019 i.e., after the award was passed up to the period of 2021, the respondent did not report for duty at the transferred place. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Nanavati submits that with regard to the wage rise for which victimization was alleged is concerned, during the cross- examination of the respondent, he admitted that I was getting the wages according to the Wage Commission's Report. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Nanavati submits that when the condition was stipulated in the appointment order that he could be transferred to any place, it was the bounden duty of the respondent to report on the duty at the transferred place. However, instead of reporting for duty, he raised a false claim before the learned Labour Court, claiming illegal termination, which was allowed and therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, the learned advocate Mr. Chauhan appearing for the respondent submits that the so-called transfer order was produced as an afterthought defence after the dispute was raised before the learned Reference Court. The advocate Mr. Chauhan submits that if the respondent did not report for duty, Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1414/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined then appropriate proceedings could have been initiated and after following the principles of natural justice, his service ought to have been put to an end. However, straightaway on his raising a demand for a wage rise, the petitioner has orally terminated the service of the respondent. The learned advocate Mr. Chauhan submits that the said so-called transfer order was never served to the present respondent. The learned advocate Mr. Chauhan submits that respondent has served for 24 years on the post of Machine Operator with the petitioner - establishment was at one place and there was no reason mentioned for transferring him to Mumbai and that too on paying the same wages. The learned advocate Mr. Chauhan submits that the learned Court, after assiging the detailed reasons, has passed an awared, directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 25% back wages, which was also not implemented for the period of 5 years and on filing the recovery application, in which the order was passed in favour of the respondent, the present petition is filed. The learned advocate Mr. Chauhan submits that during the pendency of the petition, the respondent was reinstated in service on 02.08.2021 and towards the back wages, the amount was deposited pursuant to the direction issued by this Court. Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1414/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined Therefore, the learned advocate Mr. Chauhan submits that no interference is required and the present petition is required to be dismissed.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and on referring to the reasons assigned by the learned Reference Court, it emerges that the respondent was appointed on the post of Machine Operator vide order dated 28.09.1986. As per the appointment order, his service can be transferred, as mentioned in Clause No.2. As per the transfer order dated 13.06.2011, his service was transferred with immediate effect at Mumbai. However, to establish that the respondent was having knowledge with regard to the transfer order, no documentary evidence was placed before the learned Labour Court. It emerges that on raising the grievance before the learned Commissioner, the petitioner raised his defence that the respondent did not report for duty as per the transfer order and that there is no order passed terminating the service of the respondent. However, as observed by the learned Reference Court, for not reporting for duty, neither was any notice issued nor were any departmental proceedings initiated. In addition to Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1414/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined that, except to cross-examine the respondent, no evidence was adduced by the petitioner to substantiate his defence with regard to the transfer. The respondent was serving on the post of Machine Operator and getting wages of Rs.18,000/-. In the opinion of this Court, a person who is working in the Ahmedabad since 24 years doing the work of cleaning of Machine oiling, brushing, collecting the waste and doing miscellaneous work was transferred to Bombay on paying the same wages with Rs.300/- extra as a special allowance monthly would smack act of victimization, as wage rise demand was raised by the present respondent. Additionally, during the pendency of the petition, the respondent has resumed to the duty on 02.08.2021 as well as amount of Rs.3,45,250/- was deposited with the Registry of this Court towards 25% back wages.
6.1 In that background, this Court does not deem it fit to entertain the petition, as the respondent was working as on date as well as the petitioner has also not established his defence with regard to the transfer successfully before the learned Court below.
7. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed. Notice stands Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1414/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.
8. The amount as deposited before this Court towards 25% back wages till the date of award shall be disbursed in favour of the respondent after due verification with accrued interest thereon.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:33:24 IST 2025