Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shri Bhaveshbhai Ravindrabhai ... on 15 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11396 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
SHRI BHAVESHBHAI RAVINDRABHAI RAJYAGURU
==========================================================
Appearance:
ADITYA DAVDA AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE Mr. SALIN MEHTA WITH MR NINAD P
SHAH(10911) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 15/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Leave to amend. Necessary amendments shall be carried out forthwith. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Shah waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1.
2. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Industrial Court, Bhavnagar, in Reference (IT) No. 119 of 2016 dated 09.12.2022, whereby the learned Reference Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:33:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined Court has directed the present petitioner to regularize the service of the respondent from the date of initial appointment and the interregnum period, i.e., from 01.09.2009 to the date of reference, i.e., 15.11.2016, was directed to be considered as notional for the purpose of terminal benefits. It is directed to consider the date of regularization, i.e., 01.09.2009.
3. It is the case of the present petitioner that respondent was working as a Labourer from 01.09.2009 and the dispute was raised before the Industrial Court for regularization of service. The learned Court, while allowing the reference, passed an ex- parte order directing the petitioner to regularize the service with the relief mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment.
4. Heard learned AGP Mr. Davda for the State and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Mr. Ninad Shah for the respondent.
5. Learned AGP Mr. Davda submits that though there is no post of labour in a sanctioned set-up, the learned Court has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent. Learned AGP Mr. Davda submits that after an ex-parte award came to be passed on 09.12.2022, pursuant to which an application under Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:33:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined Rule 26A of the Gujarat Industrial Disputes Rules came to be filed with a prayer for condonation of delay, being Miscellaneous Application No.06 of 2024. The learned Court dismissed the said application on a technical ground that in the application, only the Range Forest Officer had affirmed and the Deputy Conservator of Forest had not made any signature or confirmation. Learned AGP Mr. Davda submits that though the reference was filed after a period of 7 years, claiming the relief of regularization, the learned Reference Court, by holding it an unfair labour practice, has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent. Learned AGP Mr. Davda submits that the learned court has considered the length of service only for granting the relief of regularization by overlooking the material aspect of the sanctioned set-up. Learned AGP Mr. Davda submits that, in view of the above, the impugned award deserves to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded back to the learned Reference Court for deciding afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the present petitioner to adduce evidence.
6. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta submits that various opportunities were granted by the Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:33:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined learned Reference Court to appear before the learned Reference Court; however, the petitioner failed to appear before the learned Labour Court and therefore, no error has been committed by the learned Industrial Court while granting the reliefs in favour of the respondent. It is further submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehta that the length of service has not been disputed by the petitioner in the present petition. Also, the respondents, who have been serving since 2009 on a daily wager basis, have been given a meager amount towards wages in comparison to regularly employees. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehta submits that by paying such an amount, the petitioner has adopted an unfair labour practice and therefore, also the impugned award deserves to be confirmed and the petition is required to be dismissed. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehta submits that the restoration application, which came to be filed, was delayed by around one and half years and in absence of any cogent and sufficient reasons for the delay, the learned Industrial Court is justifying in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. In that background also, the impugned award deserves to be upheld and the petition is required to be dismissed. Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:33:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and on referring to the reasons assigned, it emerges that the dispute came to be raised before the learned Court, Bhavnagar, by filing the reference being Reference (IT) No.119 of 2016, seeking the benefit of regularization on the post of labourer or any equivalent post. It is claimed by the respondent before the learned Industrial Court that they are serving since 01.09.2009 and have been paid a meager amount of wages after taking the work which is perennial in nature from the respondent. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner remained absent before the learned Tribunal and the Reference Court had adjudicated the reference ex parte. However, to substantiate the claim of regularization, in the opinion of this Court, the prime consideration would be the sanctioned set-up. It emerges from the record that to establish the claim, the respondent did not bother to produce any documentary evidence suggesting that a post is available in the sanctioned set-up and the same has been remained vacant. The burden to prove the case is on the workman, even if the petitioner fails to appear and has not controverted the material placed before the Court. Admittedly, except for the chief Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:33:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined examination, the respondent has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his claim. The learned Court, instead of relying on bare words of the respondent, ought to have relied on evidences or ought to have directed the respondent to produce any contemporaneous records to support his claim. In absence of the same, in the opinion of this Court, the award passed by the learned Reference Court suffers from infirmity. The application for restoration, which was filed, was delayed by around one and half years. However, instead of examining the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the learned Court has rejected the same on the technical ground that the same was affirmed by the Range Forest Officer, Palitana, instead of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bhavnagar. In absence of any cogent and convincing reasons given by the learned Industrial Court for rejecting the application for condonation of delay, this Court is of the view that the reference is required to be restored to its original file and the opportunity to lead evidence is required to be given to both the parties in support of their claim. 7.1 At this stage, this Court has referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:33:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined Krishnamurthy, reported in AIR 1998 SC 3222, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
"11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time."
7.2 This Court has also referred the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:33:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined reported in AIR 2001 SC 3660, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
"9. The observations as above, undoubtedly lay down the basic guidance for assessment of damage but one redeeming feature ought to be noted that compensation or damages cannot be awarded as a solatium but to assess the same with reference to loss of pecuniary benefits. In the decision last noted (Subramania Iyer [(1969) 3 SCC 64] ) this Court placed strong reliance on two old decisions of the English courts, to wit: Franklin v. South Eastern Rly. Co. [157 ER 448 : (1858) 3 H&N 211] wherein Pollock, C.B. stated:
"We do not say that it was necessary that actual benefit should have been derived, a reasonable expectation is enough and such reasonable expectation might well exist, though from the father, not being in need, the son had never done anything for him. On the other hand a jury certainly ought not to make a guess in the matter, but ought to be satisfied that there has been a loss of sensible and appreciable pecuniary benefit, which might have been reasonably expected from the continuance of life."
8. Considering the overall facts, this Court has passed the following order:
(i) The present petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 09.12.2022 is set aside. The reference is remanded back to the learned Industrial Court for Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:33:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined deciding afresh.
(iii) The learned Court shall provide a reasonable opportunity to both the parties and decide the same in accordance with law.
All contentions are left open. As the petitioner remained absent in appearing before the learned Reference Court, the petitioner is directed to deposit costs of Rs.15,000/- before the learned Industrial Court and only on depositing the said cost, the reference shall be restored to its original file. On depositing the said amount, it shall be disbursed in the name of the respondent by the learned Industrial Court after due verification.
(iv) Learned Court shall also decide the claim of respondent regarding working on equal post of Labourer in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:33:30 IST 2025