Gujarat High Court
Raviraj Nandlal Dulani vs Mafatlal Nathaji Gujjar on 2 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11774/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11774 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
RAVIRAJ NANDLAL DULANI
Versus
MAFATLAL NATHAJI GUJJAR & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 02/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad, dated 28.07.2023 in Reference (T) No. 675 of 2009, whereby the learned Labour Court has partly allowed the reference filed by the respondent, directing the petitioner to pay 30% back wages along with other consequential benefits.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the dispute was raised by the respondent-workman before the Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:13:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11774/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined learned Commissioner, stating that he had been working for the petitioner as a Godown Keeper for the last 21 years and was receiving monthly wages of Rs.3,500. It is further stated that his services were terminated on 10.08.2008 without following the due procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(herein after referred to as the "ID Act"). Claiming relief of reinstatement along with other consequential benefits, the respondent raised an industrial dispute, which came to be referred to the learned Labour Court and was registered as Reference (T) No. 675 of 2009. The present petitioner appeared before the learned Labour Court and submitted that he was engaged in the business of selling sofa materials, and that the respondent was working as per his own convenience. It was contended that the petitioner undertakes furniture work only as per orders placed by clients, and the respondent would report for work only when such orders were available. It was further submitted that, as per the muster roll, the respondent had not completed 240 days of continuous service in any calendar year, and therefore, he was not entitled to the reliefs claimed in Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:13:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11774/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined the statement of claim. However, the learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record in detail, particularly the cross-examination of the petitioner's witness, during which it was admitted that the respondent had worked continuously for more than 8 to 9 years and had completed 250 days of service each year, proceeded to grant the reliefs mentioned hereinabove, which are now under challenge before this Court..
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi for the petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Modi submits that, as per the muster roll forming part of the record before the learned Labour Court, the respondent did not complete 240 days of service in any year, and that for the last 3 to 4 years, he had abandoned his services on his own. Therefore, it is contended that the respondent is not entitled to the reliefs claimed before the learned Labour Court. It is further submitted by learned advocate Mr. Modi that, on 11.08.2008, after resuming duty for half a day, the respondent abandoned his services, and hence, there was no illegal termination as alleged. It is submitted by Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:13:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11774/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined the learned advocate Mr. Modi that, despite the evidence on record, the learned Labour Court has discarded the same and partly allowed the reference in favour of the respondent. Learned advocate Mr. Modi, therefore, submits that the impugned award deserves to be set aside, and the present petition is required to be allowed.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocate and upon perusal of the reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court, it is required to be noted that, though the impugned award was passed on 28.07.2023, the present petition came to be filed and registered before the Registry of this Court on 20.08.2025. It emerges that as recovery application is filed by the respondent being Recovery C2 No. 492 of 2023, the present petition is filed. Before the learned Labour Court, it was the case of the respondent that he had been serving with the petitioner as a Godown Keeper for the past 21 years and was drawing a monthly wage of Rs.3,500. It was further alleged that his services were terminated on 10.08.2008 without following the due procedure under the ID Act. To substantiate this Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:13:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11774/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined claim, the witness of the petitioner was cross-examined at Exh.27, wherein it was admitted that the respondent had been working with the petitioner establishment for the past 8 to 9 years and was serving from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. It was also admitted that the respondent had completed 250 days of service, and that no communication regarding alleged abandonment of service was ever issued to him. The petitioner sought to rely on the evidence of a co-employee examined at Exh.35; however, during cross-examination, this witness admitted that the owner of the petitioner's establishment is his cousin brother, and that he had filed the affidavit in the form of chief examination at the owner's instance. He further admitted that he had no knowledge of the nature of the proceedings before the learned Labour Court.
5.1. In the above background, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Labour Court rightly discarded the evidence at Exh.35 and relied on the cross-examination of the petitioner's witness at Exh.27, wherein clear admissions were made regarding the respondent's continuous service for more than 250 days Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:13:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11774/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined in each year. As regards the muster roll produced before this Court to demonstrate that the respondent had not completed 240 days of service, it would have no bearing in light of the specific admissions made in the cross- examination. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Labour Court was justified in partly allowing the reference in favour of the respondent. It is also required to be noted that, though the learned Labour Court observed in paragraph 11.8 of the award that the respondent is entitled to the relief of reinstatement, the said relief was inadvertently omitted in the operative part of the award. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court under the pretext that reinstatement was granted, and in view of the clear observations in the body of the award, this Court finds no error in the grant of reinstatement along with 30% back wages. In view of the above discussion, this petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 22:13:18 IST 2025