Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhai Ramjibhai Chudasama vs Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest on 2 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/383/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 383 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
BHARATBHAI RAMJIBHAI CHUDASAMA
Versus
PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.ADITYA DAVDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 02/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr.Aditya Davda waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent- State.
2. This petition is filed under the Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the learned labour court, Junagadh in Reference (T) No.35 of 2014 dated 22.08.2017 whereby, the reference Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:02:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/383/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined filed by the present petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that there is no illegal termination provided under section 2(OO)(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the "I.D.Act").
3. The facts of the case is that the petitioner was serving as a Sweeper from 04.10.1997 with the respondent No.2 at Junagadh. It is alleged in the statement of claim which is filed before the learned industrial court that he was terminated on 19.04.2014 orally without following the procedure of the Act. The reference came to be filed with a prayer to reinstate him in the service and to grant all consequential benefits. The learned reference court, on considering the cross-examination of the present petitioner wherein, it is admitted that due to life threat to the present petitioner on account of filing FIR, he himself has left Junagadh and was staying at Dhoraji, where he was working as a Sweeper with other establishment. Learned reference court, on observing the same has dismissed the reference which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Samir.B.Gohil for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Aditya Davda for State. Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:02:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/383/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined
5. Learned advocate Mr.Gohil submits that though petitioner has served continuously from 1997 to 2010 he was terminated orally without following due procedure of law. Learned advocate Mr.Gohil submits that in the event of breach of section 25(F) of the I.D.Act, if the learned labour court is unable to grant the relief of reinstatement, then the same can be molded by granting the relief of compensation, however, instead of doing so, learned reference court has dismissed the reference therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside by allowing the present petition.
6. As against the same, learned AGP Mr.Davda submits that learned reference court, after considering the evidence in detail by assigning cogent reasons has dismissed the reference, as the petitioner himself has abandoned the service and there was no termination as alleged by the present petitioner. Hence, no interference is required and the petition is required to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the respective parties and on referring the reasons, it emerges that the statement of claim filed before the learned labour court below Exh.4 Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:02:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/383/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined reveals that the date of appointment was in the year 1997 and that of termination as 08.03.2010. During the cross-examination, as well as on referring the letter which was addressed by the present petitioner to the respondent produced below mark 7/5, it emerges that there was quarrel between the present petitioner and other person and there was threat to the life, therefore, petitioner had shifted from Junagadh to Dhoraji. It was prayed by the present petitioner that he may be accommodated at Dhoraji instead of Junagadh, however, considering his service as a Daily Wager, his request was not exceeded. It also emerges from the record that during cross-examination, petitioner has accepted that even today also, he is unable to resume the duty at Junagadh and on registration of FIR he himself has abandoned the service from 2010 onwards. In addition to the abandonment, there is a delay of four years in filing the reference before the learned labour court which remains unexplained by the present petitioner. It is required to be noted herein, that the impugned award which is passed on 22.08.2017 was challenged by filing the present petition in the month of December, 2019 Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:02:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/383/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined which is also after the period of two years. It also emerges that he was gainfully employed at Dhoraji which is admitted by him during the cross-examination.
8. Considering the overall facts, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned award, hence this petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
10. Rule discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:02:45 IST 2025