Gujarat High Court
Deputy Executive Engineer vs Jhala Upendrasinh Batuksinh @ ... on 27 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11660/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11660 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5767 of 2025
==========================================================
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Versus
JHALA UPENDRASINH BATUKSINH @ ANIRUDHDHSINH
==========================================================
Appearance:
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11660 of 2024
MS RAJVI R. SHAH, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ND SONAGARA for MR. MUKESH T MISHRA(5900) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5767 of 2025
MR ND SONAGARA for MR. MUKESH T MISHRA for the petitioner(s) No.1
MS RAJVI R. SHAH, AGPfor the Respondent(s) No.1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 27/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. The present writ petition impugns the award dated 16.01.2024 passed in Reference ( LCR) No. 36 of 2013 passed by the learned Labour Court, Morbi, whereby the workman has been reinstated without continuity of service from the date of raising of the dispute and 10% back wages.
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11660 of 2024
2. Learned AGP Ms. Rajvi R. Shah appearing for the State submits that the learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent workman has never worked at any point of time with the petitioner. She submits that the petitioners have produced a chart in respect of the respondent workman which shows that the respondent workman has worked for 143 days from the year 1989 to 2003. She submits that there is no name Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:06:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11660/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined of the respondent in the muster roll nor he has worked for any relevant point of time other than what has been admitted. She submits that in support of his claim, the respondent workman has not produced any documentary evidence. That the respondent workman has only given his oral deposition. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to prove that the respondent workman has worked for 240 days in the year preceeding his alleged termination. She submits that in absence of any cogent evidence on record in respect of the service period of the respondent workman, the reference ought to have been dismissed and no relief could have been granted. She, therefore, submits that the writ petition be allowed.
3. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. N.D. Songara appearing on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Mukesh T. Mishra for the respondent workman submits that the respondent had joined the service of the petitioner in 1989 and had worked till 2003, i.e. for the period of more than 14 years. He submits that the respondent workman came to be orally terminated in 2003 without following due procedure of law. He submits that the respondent workman has stated these facts clearly in his oral deposition which has not been shaken in the cross examination. He submits that further the respondent workman had filed application Exh.11 for direction to the petitioner to produce the records from the year 1989 till 2003 in respect of the attendance sheet and pay slips as well as seniority list. He submits that no such document came to be produced by the petitioner. He submits that the petitioners have produced only a chart on the basis of muster roll maintained by them. However, in their Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:06:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11660/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined evidence, the said chart has not been substantiated by any documentary evidence. He submits that upon proper appreciation of evidence, the learned Labour Court has partly allowed the reference. He submits that the writ petition therefore be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsels for the parties, considered the submissions and perused the documents on record.
5. The facts in the present case reveal that the respondent workman has worked with the petitioner from 1989 till 2003 for a period of more than 14 years when his service came to be orally terminated without following any due procedure of law. In the present case, the petitioner has preferred the reference after a period of around 10 years on 05.03.2013. The Assistant Labour Commissioner has referred the dispute by communication dated 17.04.2013 to the learned Labour Court, Morbi. The parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their contentions. The petitioner has not produced any muster roll or attendance sheet in support of its contention that the respondent workman had not worked with them for the said period. By Exh.11 such documents were called from the petitioner to be placed on record. However, for the reasons best known, the petitioners have not produced any copy of the muster roll or attendance sheet to controvert the claim of the respondent workman. Further, the petitioners have only produced the statement in form of chart showing that the respondent workman had worked for 143 days in total from 1989 to 2003. However, the said chart is not substantiated by Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:06:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11660/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined relevant documents. By way of evidence before the learned Labour Court, the said document cannot be relied upon for want of substatiation from the original record.
6. In the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, the findings as recorded by the learned Labour Court are based on the evidence produced before it and by assigning cogent reasons. Nothing material has been pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader to controvert the findings as arrived at by the learned Labour Court in the impugned award. The impugned award is just and proper. The present Special Civil Application is devoid of merits.
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5767 of 2025
7. By the present writ petition, the present petitioner impugns the award dated 16.1.2024, whereby the respondent has been denied the continuity of service for the period from the date of termination till the date of raising of the dispute.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the learned Labour Court has come to the conclusion that there is violation of section 25 (F), (G) and (H) of the Act, the petitioner ought to have been granted continuity of service. He submits that the learned Labour Court while allowing the reference of the petitioner workman, has held that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any of the benefits for the period from the date of termination till the raising of the dispute.
9. Learned counsel submits that in the reasons given by the Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:06:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11660/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined learned Labour Court in the impugned award, and the judgment relied upon, clearly holds that even if there is a delay in raising a dispute, the workman is entitled to continuity of service for the period undertaken to raise the dispute.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of Division Bench of this court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 190 of 2024 dated 19.03.2024, wherein it has been held that once the respondent department has failed to establish the period of working of the petitioner by way of cogent documents, and in view of the violation of section 25(F), (G), (H) of the Act, reinstatement has to follow with continuity of service.
11. It is further submitted that the petitioner workman has not been reinstated pursuant to the impugned award dated 16.1.2024.
12. Per contra, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent department submits that the petitioner raised the dispute after 10 years from his alleged oral termination. She submits that no explanation has been given in respect of such delay. She submits that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Labour Court has rightly denied the benefits for the period from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. She, therefore submits that the impugned order need not be modified.
13. In the present case, there is a categorical findings that there is violation of section 25(F), (G) and (H) of the Act. The oral termination of the petitioner is held to be bad in law and in Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:06:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11660/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined violation of section 25(F) of the Act. Further, in the absence of any documentary evidence produced on record to show that the daily-wagers junior to the petitioner were not continued in service, an adverse inference has been rightly drawn, since the work undertaken by the department is a continuous work.
14. It is well settled that once the violation of section 25(E), (F) and (G) of the Act is recorded by the learned Labour Court, then the reinstatement with continuity of service ought to be followed.
15. In the present case, the learned Labour Court has erred in not granting the continuity of service for the period from the date of oral termination till the date of raising of the dispute. The same cannot be sustained, inasmuch as there was continuous violation of section 25 (G) and (H) of the Act during the said period, for which an adverse inference has to be drawn, as no documentary evidence was produced by the department despite being directed to do so. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the impugned award is required to be modified accordingly. The award dated 16.1.2024 is modified to the extent that the petitioner workman shall be entitled to reinstatement with 10% back wages and other benefits along with the continuity of service from the date of his termination till the date of his reinstatement.
16. In view of the aforesaid reasons and observations, the Special Civil Application No. 11660 of 2024 stands dismissed and Special Civil Application No. 5767 of 2025 stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:06:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11660/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined
17. The respondent department is directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and grant 10% back wages and consequential benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Direct service is permitted.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN/d Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:06:04 IST 2026