Gujarat High Court
Bandhan Bank Limited vs Sanjay Pravinbhai Shah on 7 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2712/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2712 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
BANDHAN BANK LIMITED
Versus
SANJAY PRAVINBHAI SHAH
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGI GADHIA FOR MR CR ABICHANDANI(2421) for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1
MR JIGNESH D LAMBA(12891) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Jignesh Lamba waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1.
2 The present petition is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.306 of 2000, whereby the order of termination dated 10.08.1999 passed by the petitioner authority was Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 23:57:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2712/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined held to be illegal, and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent in service without back wages.
3 It is the case of the present petitioner that the industrial dispute was raised before the learned Labour Court alleging that the respondent had joined the petitioner establishment on 01.01.1991 and was terminated by a written order dated 10.08.1999. Prior to the termination, a chargesheet was issued to the respondent on 01.01.1998, and after holding departmental proceedings, the order of termination came to be passed, which was challenged before the learned Labour Court by way of a Reference. The learned Labour Court held the departmental inquiry to be illegal and invalid. Consequently, to prove the charges against the respondent, the petitioner examined five witnesses and produced documentary evidence on record. The respondent, in order to establish his innocence, examined himself and produced documentary evidence, including the appointment letter and confirmation on the said post. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, as well as the submissions advanced by both sides, the learned Labour Court allowed the Reference and granted the relief in favour of the respondent, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 23:57:02 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2712/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined 4 Heard the learned advocate Mr.Yogi Gadhia on behalf of learned advocate Mr.Abhichandani and the learned advocate Mr.Jignesh Lamba for the respondent.
5 Learned advocate Mr. Gadhia submits that the learned Labour Court has committed an error in discarding the evidence of five witnesses examined to establish the misconduct of the respondent. He submits that minor discrepancies in the evidence have been given undue weightage while allowing the Reference in favour of the respondent. Learned advocate Mr. Gadhia further submits that the petitioner had successfully established that, during the period of termination, the respondent was gainfully employed with another establishment; however, despite such evidence, the learned Labour Court has erroneously granted the relief of reinstatement. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Gadhia that the impugned award deserves to be quashed and set aside and the present petition be allowed.
6 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Jignesh Lamba appearing for the respondent submits that on holding the departmental inquiry illegal and invalid, the learned Labour Court has meticulously appreciated the evidence of all witnesses, particularly the cross-
Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 23:57:02 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2712/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined examination, wherein the concerned witnesses admitted that they had no knowledge regarding the charges levelled in the disciplinary proceedings. Learned advocate Mr. Lamba further submits that the respondent is presently aged about 57 years and still has approximately three years of service remaining with the petitioner establishment. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Lamba that the impugned award has been rightly passed and deserves to be confirmed by dismissing the present petition.
7 Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it emerges from the record that a chargesheet was issued to the respondent alleging various acts of misconduct. The learned Labour Court has held that the departmental inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, and therefore, an opportunity was granted to the petitioner to prove the charges by leading oral and documentary evidence. To that effect, five witnesses were examined to substantiate different charges pertaining to restraining the Recovery Officer from carrying out recovery proceedings, irregular attendance, failure to report at the place of transfer, refusal to accept EMI payments, and failure to Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 23:57:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2712/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined deposit two cheques together, among others.
7.1 On examining the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, it transpires that all five witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner had no personal knowledge regarding the charges levelled in the chargesheet. Insofar as Charge No.1, pertaining to restraining the Recovery Officer from initiating recovery proceedings, is concerned, the relevant officers, namely, Harun Shaikh and Gaurang Shah, were not examined. The witness Bharatbhai Ramanbhai Makani also lacked any personal knowledge of the alleged incident.
7.2 With regard to the charge of not reporting at the place of transfer and irregular attendance, it appears that alterations were made in the attendance sheet, for which no satisfactory explanation was furnished. Moreover, the respondent's leave application was supported by medical evidence, and there is nothing on record to indicate that the said leave was ever refused or rejected.
7.3 As regards the allegation of refusing to deposit two cheques together and accepting pre-EMI payments, there is no material on record to show Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 23:57:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2712/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined that any customer had filed a complaint, nor was there any evidence to suggest that the petitioner establishment suffered any financial loss due to the respondent's actions.
7.4 In the absence of any cogent or material evidence and in view of the failure to examine material witnesses, the learned Labour Court has rightly granted the relief of reinstatement. Admittedly, as on date, the respondent is aged about 57 years, and as per the policy of the petitioner establishment, the age of superannuation is 60 years.
8 Considering the overall circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court if the relief of reinstatement is molded with the relief of lumpsum compensation then ends of justice would meet.
9 Resultantly, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall pay a lumpsum compensation of ₹5,50,000/- to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today, towards full and final settlement of all claims. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 23:57:02 IST 2025