Gujarat High Court
Maruti Piston (P) Ltd vs Parmar Bharatkumar Parshottambhai on 18 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5224/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5224 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
MARUTI PISTON (P) LTD.
Versus
PARMAR BHARATKUMAR PARSHOTTAMBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 18/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned Labour Court, Kalol dated 15.05.2024 in Reference (LCK) No.64 of 2016 whereby learned Labour Court has directed the present petitioner to reinstate the respondent - workman with 50% back wages with continuity of service.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the respondent Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:36:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5224/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined was serving with the present petitioner since 03.07.2017 and when he went to the office of the ESI for taking the treatment amount, the office of the ESI - Authority has informed to the respondent that the company has not paid the amount and the fact that when it was conveyed to the present petitioner, the service of the present respondent came to be terminated. Challenging the order of the termination, the dispute was raised which was culminated in the reference and the learned Reference Court, after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, has awarded the reference in favour of the present respondent by directing the present petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra for the petitioner - Employer submits that the petitioner is ready to permit the respondent to join the duty, however, after the award is passed, the respondent did not approach and therefore, he has not been joined to the service. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits that the date of termination is mentioned different at different places, therefore, learned Labour Court has committed an error in believing the Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:36:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5224/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined illegal termination in absence of the specific date. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits that there was no termination at the behest of the present petitioner, however, respondent himself has abandoned the service and after taking the treatment, he never resumes the duty with fitness certificate. Learned advocate Mr Mishra submits that without considering the said aspects, learned Labour Court has allowed the reference in favour of the present respondent and therefore, the same is required to be set aside by allowing the present petition.
4. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocate Mr. Mishra and reasons assigned by the learned Reference Court, it emerges that the respondent joined with the present petitioner on 03.07.2007, the continuous service of 240 days is not disputed by the present petitioner during the reference proceedings. The only ground which is raised before the Court as well as before the learned Reference Court, is that petitioner has not terminated the services of the respondent, respondent himself has abandoned the service and at different places, the date of termination is stated different. So far as the abandonment aspect is concerned, learned Reference Court has Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:36:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5224/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined considered the evidence which is in nature of the treatment papers, produced below Exh.22, suggesting that petitioner was under the treatment of the doctor for piles surgery on 12.05.2016, 27.05.2016 and 06.06.2016. Mark 20/1 and 20/2 suggest that muster-roll and wage register showing that petitioner was in employment till 15.04.2016. The certificate issued by the doctor for remaining on leave suggests that the petitioner was under the treatment in the hospital from 05.05.2016 to 15.05.2016, 12.05.2016 to 18.05.2016, 20.05.2016 to 26.05.2016, 30.05.2016 to 05.06.2016 and 06.06.2016 to 09.06.2016 and Mark 20/4 suggests that respondent was advised to rest from 14.04.2016 to 10.06.2016. The fitness certificate was also produced before the learned Reference Court suggesting that the respondent was fit for the work in the end of month of May and beginning of June, 2016. Cross examination conducted by the present petitioner of the respondent also reveals that after the treatment was over when the respondent went to the petitioner - establishment, petitioner did not permit the respondent to resume the duty. So far as the different date at different places is concerned, on referring the evidence of the present petitioner, it is emerged that petitioner himself has Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:36:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5224/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined admitted that up to 15.04.2016, respondent was under the employment and date thereof was supported by the muster roll which was produced below Exh.20/2. Merely mentioning the different dates, in the opinion of this Court, would not render ineligible the petitioner from getting the relief of reinstatement.
5. In that background, no error has been committed by the learned Reference Court in granting the relief of reinstatement with 50% back wages. So far as the contention with regard to the non-joining after the award is passed, if considered then it emerges from the record that the petitioner has not produced any communication on record to show that the respondent has been informed by the present petitioner to join the duty and therefore also, petition is not deserved to be interfered with.
6. Resultantly, present petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:36:11 IST 2025