Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Sureshbhai Dharmabhai Parmar on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7389/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7389 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SURESHBHAI DHARMABHAI PARMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAVAL PARMAR, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court at Palanpur dated 04.09.2024, whereby the learned Reference Court has allowed the Reference being Reference (LCB) No.37 of 2023 and directed the present petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages and continuity of service.
Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:41:13 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7389/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined 2 It is the case of the present petitioner that the respondent was serving as a labour-cum-watchman since 13.01.1998 and was terminated on 01.10.2004. Challenging the order of termination, Reference No.70 of 2005 was filed, wherein a settlement was arrived at between the parties, and the petitioner agreed to take the respondent back in service. Accordingly, pursis below Exhibit 10 was filed withdrawing the Reference before the learned Labour Court. It was also agreed between the parties that the benefit of continuity of service would be given.
2.1. Thereafter, the respondent was reinstated, but again terminated on 10.12.2012, which became the subject matter of Reference No.13 of 2013. However, the said Reference was dismissed by the learned Labour Court on 08.10.2015 as the respondent did not remain present.
2.2. Subsequently, the respondent was again taken back into service, and after completing 25 years of continuous service, was once again terminated on 19.01.2023, which is the subject matter of the present impugned Reference. The learned Reference Court, after considering the evidence adduced by both parties, decided the Reference in favour of the respondent by granting the relief of Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:41:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7389/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined reinstatement with 50% back wages, and the same is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3 Heard the learned AGP Mr.Dhaval Parmar for the State.
4 Learned AGP Mr. Parmar submits that respondent No.1 manipulated the documents at the time of verification by striking out the name of another person and inserting his own name. In this regard, he had submitted an apology letter accepting the mistake on 13.01.2023. Learned AGP Parmar further submits that with a view to avail the benefit of regularization, the said mischief was committed in the cash book, and therefore, no relief can be granted in favour of a person who has attempted to forge official records.
4.1. Learned AGP Mr.Parmar further submits that without taking into consideration such mischief and the apology letter given by the wife of the respondent, the learned Reference Court has granted relief in favour of the respondent. Therefore, the impugned award is required to be set aside by allowing this petition.
5 Having considered the arguments advanced by the Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:41:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7389/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined learned AGP Mr.Parmar, it emerges from the record that the Reference was filed challenging the order of termination passed by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent had entered his name in the cash book in place of another employee and had attempted to secure the benefit of regularization on the basis of the said cash book.
5.1. To establish the charge, the petitioner examined Prakashbhai Dungarbhai Chaudhary, the Range Forest Officer serving at Wadgam Extension Range, as a witness below Exhibit 70. During the course of cross-examination of this witness, the respondent succeeded in establishing that he had served from 13.01.1998 to 19.01.2023.
5.2. It is also admitted that previously, an order of termination had been passed on 01.10.2005, for which Reference No.70 of 2005 was filed. In that proceeding, a settlement was arrived at, and the respondent was taken back into service on 30.04.2010.
5.3. It is further admitted that, as per the muster roll produced below Mark 12/1, the respondent worked for 312 days during the period from 01.10.2021 to 30.09.2022. It is also admitted that regarding the Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:41:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7389/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined allegation of forgery, an FIR was filed, but no FIR came to be registered by the police.
5.4. It is admitted that before the termination of the respondent, neither was any departmental inquiry initiated, nor was any notice or retrenchment compensation paid. It is also admitted that the work performed by the respondent is perennial in nature and that daily wagers employed through contractors continue to be engaged.
5.5. As the respondent established continuity of service before the learned labour Court through the documentary evidence produced below Exhibit 22, the learned labour Court proceeded to examine the compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is an undisputed fact that, regarding the alleged forgery, neither was any departmental inquiry conducted nor was any FIR ultimately registered. Furthermore, the cash book in which the alleged forgery was said to have occurred was not produced as part of the record before the learned labour Court.
5.6. So far as the apology letter is concerned, it was contended by the respondent employee before the learned labour Court that his signature had been Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:41:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7389/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined obtained on a blank paper and that he had not made any alteration in the cash book.
5.7. On referring to the said apology letter, the learned labour Court has concluded that the letter appears to have been written in two different handwritings. In addition, it merely mentions that a mistake was committed, without specifying the nature of such mistake. The said letter was also produced before this Court by the learned AGP Mr.Parmar. However, on perusal of the same, this Court is of the view that, in the absence of any specific admission, reliance cannot be placed on it to conclude that any alteration was carried out by the respondent. Furthermore, it is alleged that during the verification of the cash book in presence of Mr. K.M. Joshi, who was the Range Forest Officer, the respondent's name was inserted in place of another employee. However, neither Mr. Joshi was examined before the learned labour Court nor was it clarified that who the other employee was in whose place the respondent's name was allegedly inserted.
6 In the absence of any reliable evidence, the learned Reference Court has held that the termination was effected in violation of the provisions of Section 25F Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:41:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7389/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined of the Industrial Disputes Act.
7 This Court is of the view that, in the absence of any infirmity in the impugned award, it is not open for this Court to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed.
8 Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:41:13 IST 2025