Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat, Throu. Range Forest ... vs Ashwinbhai Muljibhai Bajaniya on 19 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13597/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13597 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT, THROU. RANGE FOREST OFFICER
Versus
ASHWINBHAI MULJIBHAI BAJANIYA & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS ROSHNI PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 19/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner - State of Gujarat under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act") challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 23.08.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (T.) No. 34 of 2018, whereby, the learned Judge had partly allowed the Reference preferred by the respondent-workman and has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity of service but, without any backwages. The learned Judge has also directed the petitioner to pay the retiral benefits to the respondent.
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:02:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13597/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :
2.1 That, the respondent-workman came to appointed as a daily wager on 01.07.2008 with the petitioner and was involved in the seasonal work of nurturing and maintaining the plants at the nursery of the petitioner establishment and for the said work, the respondent-
workman was paid as per the prevalent minimum wages, directly into his bank account. That, the attendance of the respondent-workman was marked and recorded for each day of the service rendered by him and consequently, the records indicated that the respondent- workman had never worked for 240 days or more from 01.07.2008 till 30.06.2015, except for the period between 01.07.2012 till 30.06.2013. That, the respondent-workman had worked with the petitioner from 01.07.2008 till 30.06.2015 and thereafter, had abandoned his services with the petitioner and had filed a Reference case being Ref. (T.) No. 34 of 2018 in the Labour Court, Junagadh, raising a grievance of being unlawfully terminated from his services by the petitioner. That, the respondent-workman had filed his Statement of Claim in the Ref. (T.) No. 34/2018 on 18.01.2019, wherein it was stated that the respondent-workman was employed as a daily wager with the petitioner, had worked for 240 days in every year of his service, for which wages were paid directly into his bank account. It was further stated that petitioner had terminated his services on 30.06.2015, without following any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thus, the respondent-workman claimed reinstatement with continuity of services along with back wages from the petitioner. That, the petitioner resisted all the averments in the Statement of Claim by filing its Written Statement, wherein it was stated that respondent- workman was appointed as a daily wager for the seasonal work of nurturing and maintaining the plants at the nursery of the petitioner Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:02:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13597/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined establishment. It was further stated that respondent-workman had never worked for 240 days in any year during the tenure with the petitioner and that respondent-workman had abandoned his services on 30.06.2015. That, the respondent-workman submitted his Affidavit in lieu of Examination-in-Chief dated 05.04.2019, wherein it was stated that the details regarding the service of notice under Section 25 (F) of the Act upon the respondent-workman as well as the details of number of days worked by the respondent-workman were stated. That, the petitioner had submitted his Affidavit in lieu of Examination- in-Chief, wherein it was stated that the petitioner establishment cannot be termed as an "industry" as defined under Section 2 (J) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that respondent-workman was engaged for seasonal worked, had never worked for 240 days and for which respondent-workman was paid wages as per the grant allocated by the State Government and that respondent-workman had never been assured of being taken back into services as respondent- workman had abandoned his services. That, the petitioner had produced the attendance sheet reflecting the details regarding the number of days of service rendered by the respondent-workman from 01.07.2008 till 30.06.2015 with the petitioner. That, the aforesaid details would reflect that respondent-workman had not completed 240 days of service in any year, except for the period between 01.07.2012 till 30.06.2013, and had completed only 276 days of service prior to abandonment of services. That, the petitioner had submitted its Written Submissions dated 02.08.2019 before the Labour Court.
2.2 Ultimately, the Labour Court passed the impugned Judgment and Award dated 23.08.2019 in Ref. (T.) No. 34 of 2018 by disbelieving the attendance sheet produced by the petitioner that Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:02:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13597/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined reflected that respondent-workman had not completed 240 days of services prior to respondent-workman abandoning of his services, by observing and holding that the respondent-workman was unlawfully terminated by the petitioner, without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F and Section 25-H of the Act, and therefore, the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent- workman with continuity of services, without back wages. The Labour Court has also directed the petitioner to pay the cost of Rs. 1,000/- towards the cost of the reference case.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and award dated 23.08.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (T.) No. 34 of 2018, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
4. Heard Ms. Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the petitioner-State and Mr. Samir B. Gohil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman.
5. Learned AGP Ms. Patel has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is erroneous, illegal and contrary to the facts and records of the case. She has submitted that though sufficient documentary evidence was produced before the Labour Court with regard to the fact that the respondent-workman had completed 240 days only in two years out of 7 years of his service with the petitioner, however, the Labour Court without considering this fact has passed the impugned judgment and award and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman alongwith benefits of continuity of service but, without backwages, which is illegal, erroneous and unjust. She has further submitted that the petitioner Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:02:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13597/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined has proved the fact before the Labour Court that the respondent- workman has not completed 240 days in each calendar year, however, the Labour Court has partly allowed the Reference filed by the respondent-workman. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned AGP Ms. Patel has urged that the impugned judgment and award be quashed and set aside and the present petition be allowed.
6. As against that, Mr. Samir Gohil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman, has submitted that there is no any infirmity or any illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court and therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the present petition. Learned counsel Mr. Gohil though has not filed affidavit-in-reply but, urged that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is in consonance with the settled principles of law and is passed after following due procedure and therefore, the same is required to be confirmed and the present petition is required to be dismissed and no interference is required to be called for while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also considered the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, more particularly the observations made in para-12.3, wherein the Labour Court has observed that the respondent-workman has worked for more than 240 days in only 2 years, out of seven years of his service and in rest of the 5 years, he has not completed 240 days in each calendar year and though this fact was established by the petitioner by producing documentary evidence, the Labour Court Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:02:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13597/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined while passing the impugned judgment and award has granted benefits of continuity of service without backwages, which in my opinion is illegal and unjust and only to that extent interference is required to be called for by this Court. Though this fact was established by the petitioner, the Labour Court has belied that the action of the petitioner to relieve the respondent-workman is in contravention to the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act but, there was no sufficient reasons recorded by the Labour Court, however, though the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment and award before this Court, the petitioner has already reinstated the respondent-workman and right now he is working with the petitioner. The Labour Court has also not granted backwages, however, it was not challenged by the respondent-workman by way of filing petition. So far as the observations made by the Labour Court with regard to benefits of continuity of service is concerned, in my opinion the same is required to be quashed and set aside.
8. In the result, the present petition is partly allowed. The observations made by the Labour Court in the impugned judgment and award dated 23.08.2019 passed in Reference (T.) No. 34 of 2018 with regard to benefits of continuity of service is hereby quashed and set aside. The rest of the award is upheld. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:02:51 IST 2025