Gujarat High Court
Ganga R. K. Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Dharmendra Manilal Ramavat on 8 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12348/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12348 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
GANGA R. K. INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.
Versus
DHARMENDRA MANILAL RAMAVAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
JEET Y RAJYAGURU(8039) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ J SHAH(3110) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 08/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference LCR No.76 of 2017 dated 28.04.2025 whereby learned Labour Court has directed to the present petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages and Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:39:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12348/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined consequential reliefs.
3. It is the case of the present petitioner before this Court that the petitioner and respondent no.2 to 4 are distinct legal entities and registered under different registration number. Respondent no.2 to 4 has seized from operation long back and at present are not doing any business activity. The respondent employee has raised the dispute before Industrial forum seeking reinstatement and declaration of illegal termination. It was referred to the learned Labour Court for adjudication and same was numbered as reference LCR No.76 of 2017 wherein, the present petitioner appeared and submitted that the employee was engaged for temporary work and from 2001 to 2015 he worked as a Clerk with different firms. It is contended that the employee had tendered his resignation and without filing any application for withdrawal the said resignation and after acceptance of the same, dispute was raised before the learned Reference Court. Therefore, dispute sought to be dismissed by the present petitioner. Learned reference court, considering the evidence adduced on record, has partly allowed the reference in favour of the respondent Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:39:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12348/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined by granting relief mentioned hereinabove, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru for the petitioner.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru submits that learned Labour Court has committed error discarding the material piece of evidence i.e. resignation which is produced along with D.E List of the present petitioner. Learned advocate Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru submits that said resignation was never denied neither rebutted by the present respondent employee however, only on the ground that no contention with regard to the resignation was taken in written statement, learned court has overlooked the resignation and awarded relief in favour of the respondent. Learned advocate Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru submits that without establishing the continuity of service in light of section 25B of the I.D.Act learned Court has committed error in relying on the certificate issued by the present petitioner stating that respondent has worked from 20.10.2013 to 30.11.2015 and believed the case of the respondent with regard to continuity of service. Learned advocate Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru submits Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:39:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12348/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined that in absence of any production application or any documentary evidence suggesting continuous work of the present petitioner, learned court has committed error in awarding the reference in favour of the respondent and same is required to be set aside and this petition is required to be allowed.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned advocate for the petitioner Mr.Rajyaguru and on referring the reasons by the learned reference court, it emerges that on raising the dispute with regard to illegal termination from 11.11.2015 the petitioner has appeared and has filed the common written statement on behalf of all four first parties i.e. petitioner as well as respondent no.2 and 4. It is undisputed fact that all four are sister concerns and run by the members of the same family. To establish the claim of illegal termination the respondent alongwith statement of claim has filed certificate issued by different company namely Steel Forged, Asia Diesel Exports, Kotecha Steel Forged Pvt. Ltd. And Ganga R.K.Industries Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner who is fourth company namely Ganga R.K.Industries Pvt. Ltd. has certified that respondent has worked with him Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:39:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12348/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined from 20.10.2013 to 30.11.2015. This certificate has neither claimed to have been forged nor has been rebutted during the course of evidence of the petitioner. The written statement which is filed by the present petitioner contended only the abandonment of service of the respondent, however, during the cross-examination it is admitted that for so called abandonment neither any notice was issued nor any inquiry was initiated. The cross-examination of the respondent was concluded on 24.06.2024 and thereafter, chief-examination of witness of the present petitioner was filed on 22.07.2024 stating that respondent has resigned from the service on 23.10.2015 and resignation was placed on record. It is undisputed fact that said resignation was not put to the respondent during the cross-examination therefore, respondent was not having any opportunity to deal with the said resignation and in absence of the same in the considered opinion of this Court the resignation cannot said to have been proved. Apart from this if the case of the petitioner was that respondent has resigned from the service then at first opportunity he could have contended the same aspect and produce the resignation Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:39:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12348/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined along with his written statement. In absence of the same, this Court is of the view that resignation is nothing but an afterthought defence which was raised to absolve from the liability of payment of retrenchment compensation.
6.1. This Court has referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ahmedabd New Textile Mills Vs Rajubhai Dalchandbhai reported in and in the case of Morbi Nagar palika Vs Bhavanbhai Khodabhai Patel & Anr reported in (2016) 16 SCC 491 wherein, it is held that mere production of documents does not mean the admission of documents in evidence. In order to admit the document in evidence, the document must be proved as per the provisions of Evidence Act or it must be admitted by the other side in evidence. Mere production of the document will not make the admission of the document in evidence. 6.2. As discussed above, the petitioner fails to rebut the certificate which was produced by the respondent alongwith his statement of claim and no error has been committed by the learned Court in believing the case of the continuity of service and granting the relief in favour Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:39:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12348/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined of the respondent. Except the resignation no contrary evidence were placed on record to show that respondent is not entitled for relief which is claimed and therefore, in absence of the same no error has been committed by the learned Court in relief of reinstatement with continuity of service with 50% back wages. The present petition devoid of merits requires to be dismissed.
7. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) ARCHANA S. PILLAI Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 04:39:28 IST 2025