Gujarat High Court
Quill Kamdar Association vs Dgp Windsor India Limited Since Renamed ... on 12 November, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/3078/2010 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 3078 of 2010
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12678 of 2009
=============================================
QUILL KAMDAR ASSOCIATION
Versus
DGP WINDSOR INDIA LIMITED SINCE RENAMED AS WINDSOR
& ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
DR BALRAM D JAIN(3146) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NAME DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
DESHAL A MODI(12518) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR TEJENDRA K JHALA(3363) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 12/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. This Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. S. Supehia and Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. S. Pirzada) passed the following order on 08.10.2025:
"1. Learned advocate Dr.Balram D. Jain, at the outset, has submitted that initially, the Tribunal has passed an order dated 20.05.2009, deciding the Reference (I.T.) Nos.125 of 2001, 286 of 2002, 73 of 2004 and 29 of 2005. He has submitted that the Reference (I.T.) No.125 of 2001 was allowed to be withdrawn, whereas in the rest of the reference cases being Reference (I.T.) Nos.286 of 2002, 73 of 2004 and 29 of 2005, no permission was granted to withdraw the disputes. It is submitted by him that the aforesaid award was assailed by the Company by filing a writ petition being Special Civil Application Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:25:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/3078/2010 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined No.12678 of 2009, and the learned Single Judge, by the judgment and order dated 07.12.2010, quashed and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal.
2. It is submitted that against the same, the Quill Kamdar Association filed Letters Patent Appeal No.3078 of 2010. It is submitted that by an interim order dated 28.02.2013 passed in Civil Application (for Stay) No.17003 of 2010, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge were stayed. However, it is submitted that by the final judgment and order dated 18.02.2014, Letters Patent Appeal No.3078 of 2010 was disposed of as having not been maintainable. It is submitted that thereafter, the Association has filed the Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court being Special Leave Petition Nos.31126-31130 of 2014, which were disposed of by the Supreme Court vide order dated 05.01.2024, setting aside the order passed by the Division Bench and remanding the matter to this Court.
3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned advocate Mr.Deshal Modi, appearing for the respondent, has submitted that during the pendency of all these proceedings, the main Reference (I.T.) No.286 of 2002 has already been decided by the Tribunal vide award dated 09.08.2017 and Reference Nos.29 of 2005 and 73 of 2004 have also been decided on 10.07.2025. A copy of the same is provided to learned advocate Dr.Balram D Jain. Thus, it appears that the present matter has become infructuous. However, Mr.Jain requested for some time to take instructions.
4. List the matter on 15.10.2025."
2. Learned advocate Mr. B. D. Jain for the appellant submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at with Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:25:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/3078/2010 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined the respondent - company, some of the workers are not given the benefit of such settlement. In Special Civil Application No. 12678 of 2009, the respondent - company challenged the consolidated order dated 20.05.2009 passed below Exhibit-20 in Reference (IT) No.286 of 2008, Exhibit-18 in Reference (IT) No.73 of 2004 and Exhibit-13 in Reference (IT) No.29 of 2005 whereby, the Industrial Tribunal rejected the applications filed for withdrawal of references in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. The learned Single Judge by Judgment and Order dated 07.12.2010 allowed the petitions quashing and setting aside the order of rejection passed by the Tribunal in respect of the aforesaid applications and applications for seeking permission for withdrawal of the reference were allowed. Being aggrieved, the appellant - Union has preferred this appeal. This Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayant Patel and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohinder Pal) by order dated 28.02.2013 disposed of the application for stay by observing as under:
"2. It prima facie appears that if the learned Single Judge was of the view that Section 2A of I.D. Act would not be applicable in a case where the. Reference was to be withdrawn, at the most, the learned Single Judge could have relegated the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for reconsideration of the matter and for passing appropriate orders and after reconsideration of the matter by the Industrial Tribunal, award in terms of the final decision was required to be passed and thereafter only the Reference could be said as concluded. The Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:25:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/3078/2010 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, has not only set aside the order of the lower Court, but further exceeded the jurisdiction for dismissal of the Reference itself.
3. In our prima facie view in a case where the Reference is to be withdrawn, may be by way of settlement or otherwise, the award in terms of settlement or for withdrawal of the dispute, is a 'must' for termination of the proceedings of the Reference, Further, it was not a case where the award was already passed and thereafter this Court was exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, but was a case where the Industrial Tribunal had not granted permission for withdrawal of the Reference, against which the petition was there. Therefore, it could be said that the learned Single Judge exercised conjoint powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the appeal could be maintained. If the merit of the case is further examined, prima facie it appears that the order for dismissal of the Reference Court not have been passed.
4. Hence, by interim order, the operation and implementation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge would remain stayed and suspended."
3. It appears that by order dated 18.02.2014, this appeal was disposed of as not maintainable in view of the decision of the Larger Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.596 of 2008 as concerned Tribunal was not made a party. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Apex Court has remanded the matter back by order dated 05.01.2024. As observed vide order dated 08.10.2025, during pendency of this appeal, Reference (IT) No.286 of 2002 has already been Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:25:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/3078/2010 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined decided by the Tribunal vide award dated 09.08.2017 by rejecting the same and Reference (IT) No.29 of 2005 and Reference (IT) No.73 of 2004 have been disposed of by the Tribunal by Judgment and Order dated 10.07.2025, the question of as to whether the application referred to hereinabove for withdrawal of the reference, are required to be rightly rejected at Tribunal or allowed by the learned Single Judge has become academic. Appeal, thus, having become infructuous, is accordingly disposed of as the grievance raised in the petition is not existing as on today.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) Jaimin Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:25:45 IST 2025