Gujarat High Court
Vajraj Sales Corporation vs Dineshbhai Veljibhai Makwana on 3 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1873/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1873 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
VAJRAJ SALES CORPORATION
Versus
DINESHBHAI VELJIBHAI MAKWANA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
JEET Y RAJYAGURU(8039) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR BB GOGIA(5851) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS MUSKAN A GOGIA(6624) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 03/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 14.10.2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No.78 of 2011 qua awarding 25% back wages to the respondent.
2. It is the case of the petitioner before this Court that the respondent was working as Turner-Fitter since Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 22:00:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1873/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined 1999. Without any justifiable reason, the respondent went on leave and took up employment elsewhere, where he was earning a handsome salary. Thereafter, the respondent raised an industrial dispute, which came to be registered as Reference (LCR) No.78 of 2011, alleging that his services were terminated on 10.07.2008 without issuance of any notice or payment of retrenchment compensation. In the statement of claim, it was stated that he had been working for the last 12 years and was drawing wages of Rs.5,000/- per month, and that his services were terminated on 19.03.2011 without following due procedure under the Act. The learned Labour Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, partly allowed the Reference and directed reinstatement with 30% back wages vide judgment and award dated 14.10.2019, which is under challenge in this petition.
3. At this stage, it is required to be noted that during the pendency of the petition, the respondent- workman expired on 29.12.2024 and, therefore, his legal heirs have been brought on record as party- respondents before this Court.
4. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Anand Gogia for the respondent.
Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 22:00:38 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1873/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined
5. Learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru for the petitioner submits that the challenge in the present petition is confined only to the grant of 25% back wages, as the respondent was never terminated but had himself abandoned the service. Therefore, there was no occasion to assail the direction of reinstatement. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru that despite being repeatedly called upon to resume duty, the respondent failed to do so and instead raised an industrial dispute before the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court, relying solely on the evidence produced by the respondent-workman, has erroneously granted 25% back wages. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petition allowed.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Anand Gogia appearing on behalf of the heirs of the deceased workman has submitted that though the impugned award was not challenged insofar as it granted the relief of reinstatement, the respondent was in fact not reinstated, which necessitated initiation of recovery proceedings by way of an application under Section 33C(2), being Recovery Application No.1 of 2020. It is contended that the respondent was initially terminated in the year 2008, but was thereafter reinstated and again terminated in 2011.
Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 22:00:38 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1873/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined Learned advocate Mr. Gogia has further submitted that the notices issued by the present petitioner, which is forming part of the record below Exhibit 43, remained unreplied, and therefore, the learned Labour Court was justified in granting the relief of reinstatement with 30% back wages. It is also submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Gogia that the petitioner had issued a public notice declaring that the respondent had abandoned service and cautioning the public not to transact on behalf of the company, which was rightly treated by the Labour Court as a reply to Exhibit 43, thereby supporting the finding of illegal termination. Learned advocate Mr. Gogia further submits that though the petitioner called upon the respondent in 2022 to resume duty, the respondent had undergone a bypass surgery in that year and, on account of ill health, had expressed his inability to resume immediately and stated that he would revert after four to five days to work on a part-time basis. However, during the pendency of the petition, the respondent expired, and therefore, it is prayed that in order to meet the ends of justice, the impugned award may be moulded by granting lump- sum compensation in favour of the legal heirs.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and on Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 22:00:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1873/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined perusal of the reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court while allowing the Reference in favour of the respondent, it emerges that the service of the respondent was initially terminated on 10.07.2008. On issuance of a notice by the respondent, the petitioner, in reply, called upon him to resume duty, and accordingly, the respondent resumed work. However, after a period of three years, the services of the respondent were again terminated on 19.03.2011, pursuant to which another notice dated 22.03.2011 was issued by the respondent, which is produced below Exhibit 43. During the course of cross-examination, the petitioner's witness admitted that the said notice remained unreplied and that neither compensation nor notice pay was paid prior to effecting the termination. The production application filed below Exhibit 8 was also replied to in a whimsical manner by merely stating that the documents were required for adjudication of the dispute.
8. In the opinion of this Court, the conduct of the petitioner reflects adamancy, inasmuch as once the application was filed and allowed, it was the bounden duty of the petitioner either to produce the relevant documents or to file an affidavit explaining the reasons for non-production thereof. The learned Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 22:00:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1873/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, including the cross-examination of the petitioner's witness, awarded the Reference in favour of the respondent by directing reinstatement with 25% back wages. It is undisputed that despite the award dated 14.10.2019, no reinstatement was effected. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, if a lump-sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded towards full and final settlement of the award, the ends of justice would be met.
9. Resultantly, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the respondent shall be entitled to lump-sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of the award, which shall be paid by the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
10. It is needless to clarify that the aforesaid amount is awarded in lieu of reinstatement as well as back wages, and therefore, all proceedings initiated consequent to the award of the learned Labour Court shall also stand concluded.
11. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Gogia has submitted that the petitioners are in possession of certain original documents belonging to the Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 22:00:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1873/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2025 undefined respondent. This Court expects that if any such documents are available with the petitioners, the same shall be handed over to the legal heirs of the deceased respondent.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 22:00:38 IST 2025