Gujarat High Court
Sanjaybhai Mohanbhai Dodiya vs Range Forest Officer on 9 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/649/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 649 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SANJAYBHAI MOHANBHAI DODIYA
Versus
RANGE FOREST OFFICER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AMAR D MITHANI(484) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR YV VAGHELA(2450) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.DHAVAL PARMAR, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 09/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by learned labour court, Junagadh in Reference (L.C.J.) No.63 of 2015 dated 07.05.2019 whereby, learned reference court has awarded the lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards full and final Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:56:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/649/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined settlement of the award.
2. The gist of the case is that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Sweeper on 08.10.2005 on a contractual basis, drawing monthly wages of Rs. 5,500/-. On 15.04.2015, as per the allegations made by the petitioner, his services were terminated without following the due procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "ID Act"). This termination was challenged before the learned Reference Court by filing a reference, wherein relief was sought for reinstatement along with consequential benefits. The learned Reference Court, upon concluding the proceedings in favour of the petitioner and holding that there was a breach of Sections 25(F), 25(G), and 25(H) of the ID Act, awarded lump sum compensation instead of ordering reinstatement. This award is now under challenge by the petitioner through the present petition.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Mithani for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Dhaval Parmar for the respondent.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Mithani submits that, indisputably, the petitioner had been serving with the respondent Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:56:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/649/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined employer since 2005. Allegations were made against the petitioner regarding the recording of a video of lion cubs in a cage, which is prohibited under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Based on this allegation, the services of the petitioner were terminated. Learned advocate Mr.Mithani submits that though learned reference court did not believe the alleged misconduct on the ground that taking a video has not been proved through a CD as well as by producing the certificate required under section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, and, though learned reference court has held in favour of the petitioner with regard to section 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the ID Act has awarded lump sum compensation. Learned advocate Mr.Mithani submits that, as on date, the work is available, and as observed by the learned Reference Court, the said work has been carried out through other employees while the petitioner was not called back to work. Hence, there is a clear breach of Sections 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the event of such a breach, the only appropriate remedy is reinstatement. However, the learned Reference Court has awarded only a meager Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:56:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/649/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined amount as lump sum compensation. Learned advocate Mr.Mithani has relied on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Rameshbhai Bhatibhai Pagi Versus Deputy Executive Engineer in Special Civil Application No.1443 of 2022 wherein, in an identical situation, this Court has granted relief of reinstatement by holding that in breach of section 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the ID Act, learned labour court ought to have awarded reinstatement rather than compensation. Learned advocate Mr.Mithani submits that without considering the above aspect, impugned award is passed, hence the same is required to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr.Parmar has submitted that the appointment of the present petitioner was purely contractual in nature, and the last contract, executed on 01.12.2014, came to an end on 31.03.2015. Learned AGP Mr.Parmar He submits that upon completion of the said contract, and in the absence of any further extension, particularly in light of the incident that occurred on 09.03.2015, the petitioner's services were terminated. Learned AGP Mr.Parmar submits that Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:56:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/649/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined the contention with regard to the continuous service was not believed by the learned reference court and it is held that the petitioner has not completed 240 days except in the year 2012-13 and though in the preceding year requirement of section 25 (B) of the ID Act has not been satisfied, learned reference court has granted lump sum compensation. Learned AGP Mr.Parmar further submits that since the petitioner's services were terminated upon the expiry of a fixed-term contract, it would not amount to "retrenchment" as defined under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act. Consequently, the provisions of Sections 25(G) and 25(H) of the Act would not apply in the present case. Learned AGP Mr.Parmar has relied on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation Versus Salimbhai Umarbhai Mansuri reported on 2013 (14) SCC 456 and submitted that in an identical case, Apex Court has held that in absence of extension of contract, the reinstatement cannot be awarded. Learned AGP Mr.Parmar submits that as learned reference court, without considering the evidence placed on record, has not granted the relief of reinstatement, no interference Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:56:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/649/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined is required and petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the respective parties and on referring the records, it emerges that the appointment of the present petitioner was made on contractual basis from year 2005. It is undisputed fact that the evidence below mark 17/1 which is the muster roll as well as the attendance register suggests that the petitioner did not work for the period from 07.01.2006 to 06.07.2008 i.e. around two years and six months, similarly from 07.11.2008 to 02.07.2009 i.e. around eight months, 12.09.2009 to 07.06.2010 i.e. around six months and in the year 2010-11 for not a single day. It further emerges from the record that, except for the year 2011-12, the petitioner did not complete 240 days of work in any given year, as alleged. Reference to the contractual documents on record, marked as Exhibits 17/2 to 17/8, reveals that the last contract was executed for a period of four months, from 01.12.2014 to 31.03.2015.. 6.1. It was the case of the respondent before the learned Labour Court, as stated in the written statement, that the petitioner's services were terminated upon the Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:56:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/649/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined conclusion of the contract. It was also contended by the respondent before the learned Labour Court that, prior to the completion of the contract on 09.03.2015, an incident was reported in the newspaper concerning the petitioner taking a video clip of lion cubs inside the cage. Consequently, in view of this incident and the terms of the contract, the petitioner's contract was not extended further. Clause 11 of the contract, produced at Exhibit 17/8, clearly states that the contract was temporary in nature, and upon completion of the contract, the employee would not be entitled to any further extension or permanency benefits. Learned reference court has held that there is a continuous service of 240 days, on relying on the contract for the period of 2012-13, however, if one would refer the provision of section 25(F) of the ID Act which suggests the continuous service of 240 days mandates the continuous service of 240 days in the preceding year, then the preceding year would be for the period of 2013-
14. As per the muster roll and attendance register in the year 2013-14, the petitioner has worked only for a period of 180 days. In that background in the considered Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:56:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/649/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined opinion of this Court, violation of section 25(F) of the ID Act has not been provided. In addition to that when the appointment was purely on contractual basis that would exclude from the definition of retrenchment provided under section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act. For better understanding it is reproduced herein below:-
"2(oo) "retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include-
(a)voluntary retirement of the workman; or
b)retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf;
2(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or]"
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, since the termination of the petitioner's service was due to non- renewal of the contract, it cannot be treated as retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
8. At this stage, the reference of judgment of the Apex Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:56:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/649/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined Court in the case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation Versus Salimbhai Umarbhai Mansuri (supra) is required to be made, relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:-
"7. We are of the view that the Labour Court as well as the High Court have completely misunderstood the scope of Section 2(oo), (bb), as well as Section 25G and H of the ID Act. The contract of employment and the terms and conditions contained therein are crucial in the application of the above-mentioned provisions. Facts would clearly indicate that the respondent had worked only for 54 days in two fixed periods and on expiry of the second term his service stood automatically terminated on the basis of the contract of appointment. A reference to the contract would be useful to understand the nature of appointment of the respondent.
9. The above order was signed by the respondent and, therefore, bound by the terms and conditions of the office order. The question is, termination of the service of the respondent on the expiry of the periods mentioned above would amount to retrenchment? Facts in this case clearly show, so found by the Labour Court itself that the respondent had not worked continuously for 240 days in an year to claim the benefit of Section 25F, G and H of the ID Act. Therefore, the only question to be considered is whether termination of service of the respondent on the basis of the contract of appointment would amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 25H of the ID Act so as to claim reinstatement.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Section 25G & H, Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:56:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/649/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined the same are extracted herein below:
"25G. Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.
25H. Re- employment of retrenched workmen.- Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity 2[ to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re- employment and such retrenched workman] who offer themselves for re- employment shall have preference over other persons."
13. Section 25H will apply only if the respondent establishes that there had been retrenchment. Facts will clearly indicate that there was no retrenchment under Section 2(oo) read with Section 2(bb) of the ID Act. Consequently, Section 25H would not apply to the facts of the case. Similar is the factual and legal situation in the civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.5387 of 2012 as well.
14. We are sorry to note that the Labour Court, learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have not properly appreciated the factual and legal position in this case. When rights of parties are being adjudicated, needless to say, serious thoughts have to be bestowed by the Labour Court as well as the High Court. For the above-mentioned reasons we allow both the appeals, set aside the Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:56:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/649/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined award passed by the Labour Court and confirmed by the High Court. However, there will be no order as to costs."
9. As there is no retrenchment, the provisions of Sections 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act would not apply, as held by the Apex Court in the aforementioned case. However, since the State has not challenged the impugned award, this Court is not in a position to set it aside. In that background, this Court declines to interfere with the impugned award.
10. The decision relied upon by the learned advocate in the case of Rameshbhai Bhatibhai Pagi v. Deputy Executive Engineer (supra) did not pertain to a contractual employee; therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the present petitioner. Accordingly, this petition deserves to be dismissed.
11. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
12. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:56:17 IST 2025