Gujarat High Court
Lic Of India vs Amrutlal Tribhuvandas Joshi Since Died ... on 16 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/70/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 70 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
LIC OF INDIA
Versus
AMRUTLAL TRIBHUVANDAS JOSHI SINCE DIED THROUGH LHR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RH RUPARELIYA(6212) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6
MS.NEHA R RUPARELIYA(6361) for the Respondent(s) No.
1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 16/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2003, passed by 3rd Extra Assistant Judge Rajkot, in Regular Civil Appeal No.135 of 1989 whereby the judgment and decree dated 10.11.1989, passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) Rajkot, in Regular Civil Suit No.784 of 1987, has been confirmed.
2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original status as that in the suit.
Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:59 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/70/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
3. The brief facts arising in the present Second Appeal are that the plaintiff joined the service of defendant Corporation on the post of Development Officer with effect from 19.11.1961 at Babra. Thereafter, he was entrusted the work at Lathi in June 1962, and from 15.10.1969, his headquarter was shifted at Amreli and that he was serving at Amreli. The plaintiff was served with a suspension order dated 15.10.1984, issued by the defendant under which disciplinary action was taken and hence from 16.10.1984, the plaintiff was in suspension. Thereafter, the plaintiff was served with a charge sheet on 25.4.1984, for his alleged misconduct of identifying the surety for surrender value discharge voucher.
4. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer started inquiry and on the basis of statement of three witnesses, held that the charges against the plaintiff have been proved and the plaintiff received a show-cause notice dated 20.01.1987 from the defendant along with the inquiry report dated 17.07.1986 for imposing penalty of dismissal. The said show-cause notice was replied by the plaintiff on 17.02.1987 and on 03.07.1987, the plaintiff received the order bearing no.Nil dated 30.06.1987, according to which the plaintiff was punished of dismissal from the service. Hence, the plaintiff filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction and the defendant appeared in the said suit and filed their written statement vide Exhibit 12. The Trial Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/70/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Court framed issues vide Exhibit 27.
"(1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that the order, which is passed by the Defendant at the end of the Departmental Inquiry conducted pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 28/7/85 issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, to dismiss the Plaintiff from service is against the law?
(2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief as sought for in his plaint?
(3) What order and decree?"
5. After considering the oral evidence and the documentary evidence, the suit filed by the plaintiff was allowed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court the defendant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.135 of 1989 and after re-appreciating the evidence, the First Appelalte Court dismissed the said appeal, hence, the present Second Appeal.
6. The present Second Appeal has been admitted by the Coordinate Bench by an order dated 12.09.2003 and the following substantial questions of law have been framed:
"(A)Whether the Appellant can be permitted to raise the objection as to the bar of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the subject matter of the suit for the first time in the Second Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/70/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Appeal.
(B) Whether the subject matter of the suit was an `industrial dispute' within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred in the subject matter of the suit. (C) Whether the Courts below are right in holding that the disciplinary inquiry held against the delinquent-plaintiff was vitiated for violation of the principles of the natural justice and fair play."
7. With respect to the substantial questions of law (A) and (B) are concerned, the learned advocate for the defendant has fairly stated that in view of the judgment reported in 2015 7 SCC 263, the said fact has already been taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Development Officers working in LIC are not workmen under Section 2(S) of the Act and therefore, the objection that has been raised by the appellant, "(A)Whether the Appellant can be permitted to raise the objection as to the bar of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the subject matter of the suit for the first time in the Second Appeal.(B) Whether the subject matter of the suit was an `industrial dispute' within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred in the subject matter of the suit., Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/70/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined having already been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it cannot be said that the subject matter of the suit was an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred in the subject matter of the suit.
8. With respect to the substantial question of law (C)Whether the Courts below are right in holding that the disciplinary inquiry held against the delinquent-plaintiff was vitiated for violation of the principles of the natural justice and fair play, is concerned, the learned advocate for the defendant has argued that the Trial Court and Appellate Court have not taken into consideration that there were evidence on record that the disciplinary inquiry held against the plaintiff was not in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. The fact remains that the plaintiff has by sufficient evidence proved that the said inquiry was held after considering the evidence on record and, it cannot be said that the inquiry officer has acted in a bias manner.
9. It has been argued by the learned advocate for the defendant that the Inquiry Officer had made a detailed report and as per the said report, the policy holder had not received the surrender value and as per the said report, they found the fact that the surety Mr.Premchand Nemchand Shah is a fictitious Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/70/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined person and during the inquiry, both the officers were examined and they have clearly stated the said fact. The Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the Inquiry Officer had not examined Mr.Premchand Nemchand Shah but the fact remains that he was a fictitious person and therefore, the question of examining him does not arise.
10. Therefore, it has been argued that the Trial Court could not have allowed the said suit and the First Appellate Court could not have confirmed the said judgment and decree. In view of the said fact, it cannot be said that the disciplinary inquiry held against the plaintiff was vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice and fair play.
11. Per contra, the learned advocate for the plaintiff has argued that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have taken into consideration the facts of the present case and from the said judgment and decree, there is nothing on record to show that there is a mistake of law and fact by committed the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and therefore, the present second appeal is required to be dismissed.
12. It has been argued that from the entire proceedings of the departmental inquiry, it has been clearly established by the plaintiff that the departmental inquiry held against the plaintiff Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/70/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined was vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice and fair play.
13. Having heard learned advocate for the parties and having considered the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court, the substantial question of law with respect to (A)Whether the Appellant can be permitted to raise the objection as to the bar of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the subject matter of the suit for the first time in the Second Appeal. and (B) Whether the subject matter of the suit was an `industrial dispute' within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred in the subject matter of the suit., has already been answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 2015 7 SCC 263 and therefore, the development officer working in LIC are not workmen under Section 2 (S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore, there is no bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the subject matter of the suit, and therefore, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise the objection as to the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the subject matter of the suit, and the subject matter of the suit is not an Industrial Dispute within the meaning of Section 2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred in the subject matter of the suit.
Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:59 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/70/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
14. With respect to the substantial questions of law no. (C)Whether the Courts below are right in holding that the disciplinary inquiry held against the delinquent-plaintiff was vitiated for violation of the principles of the natural justice and fair play, is concerned, thought there was a ground of misappropriate of funds of Life Insurance Corporation of India, it has come on record that the defendant failed to produce important witnesses. The Inquiry Officer has also not examined the material witnesses i.e. Mr.Bhagvandas Kamdar who is a policy holder, and who has not received the surrender value and is a complainant of the said charge and it has come on record that material witnesses were not examined and merely on bare words of the officers, the said inquiry has taken place.
15. The Inquiry Officer has also not examined the Sarpanch of Khambha and the defendant has merely relied on the report of their officer, neither any effort was made to issue summons to call the relevant persons and witnesses and therefore, the plaintiff was deprived of his right of cross examining the said witnesses. Moreover, the disciplinary authority has not given any reason as to why the reply of the plaintiff was not satifactory. It has also come on record that the Inquiry Officer rejected the plaintiff's request of recalling the witness and no reasons were given by the defendant to reject the said application.
Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:59 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/70/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
16. Moreover, even before initiating the inquiry, it has come on record that, the list of document and list of witnesses were also not supplied to the plaintiff and therefore, with respect to substantial question of law no. 'C', the Court below has rightly held that the disciplinary inquiry held against the plaintiff was vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice and fair play.
17. Under the circumstances, both the learned Trial Court and First Appellate Court have rightly decided the issue in the right perspective. The appellant has failed to prove his case before the learned Trial Court as well as before the First Appellate Court and therefore, the present Second Appeal is required to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.
sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) URIL RANA Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 05:52:59 IST 2025