Bombay High Court
Baljinder Kaur Nangal Chopra vs M/S Alfa Laval India Pvt Ltd on 26 August, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
12. CIVIL WP-11408-25.docx
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11408 OF 2025
Baljinder Kaur Nangal Chopra .. Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Alfa Laval India Pvt Ltd .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Nitin A. Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioner
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 26, 2025
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for Petitioner.
2. Petitioner before me is the employee whose services were
terminated by termination letter dated 19.06.2020 appended at page
No. 32, Exh. "B" of the Petition by merely stating that it is on the basis
of the terms of her employment contract with the Company. Save and
except this statement, there are no reasons given in the said
termination letter.
3. Before the Labour Court, Respondent employer filed its written
statement in 2020. Complaint (ULP) No. 53/2020 is pending before
the Labour Court. Deposition of both the parties on Part-I has been
completed and Petitioner has been held to be a workman. On the
merits of the matter qua termination, the evidence is in progress at
present before Labour Court. Respondent employer filed Application
1 of 4
12. CIVIL WP-11408-25.docx
below Exh. C-44 after a hiatus of 4 years, copy of which is appended at
page Nos. 106-115, Exh. 'J' of the Petition by virtue of which he sought
to introduce the reasons for termination of the employee on the
ground of shortcomings in work, misconduct, negligence and non-
performance of duties. Learned Labour Court dismissed the
Application with a reasoned order dated 01.04.2025 appended at
page Nos. 122-128, Exh. "L of Petition by concluding that the said
Application amounted to changing the nature of defence adopted by
the employer in its written statement and most importantly improving
the evidence subsequently which is absent in the termination letter
issued to the employee.
4. The employer challenged the order dated 01.04.2025 in
Revision under Section 44 before the Industrial Court. Industrial
Court by virtue of the impugned judgment dated 04.08.2025 allowed
the Revision by concluding that by virtue of rejection of Exh. C-44,
learned Labour Court has virtually allowed the Complaint filed by
Petitioner by denying an opportunity to the employer to rely on the
reasons for termination.
5. Prima facie when the termination letter dated 19.06.2020 is
seen, it is evident that no reasons are given in the said letter. However
in the impugned order it is held that Court has come to the conclusion
that Application below Exh. C-44 deserves to be allowed as it would
2 of 4
12. CIVIL WP-11408-25.docx
neither change the nature of Complaint nor it will cause any prejudice
to the employee and it shall be open to the Petitioner employee to
rebut the defence. This finding prima facie in my opinion amounts to
allowing the employer to improve its defence when the termination
letter is silent on the grounds.
6. After perusing the impugned judgment dated 04.08.2025 which
incidentally awards substantial costs to the Petitioner employee, I am
of the opinion that an arguable case is made out by Mr. Kulkarni for
issuance of notice to the Respondent. Hence, issue notice to the
Respondent made returnable on 11.09.2025. Humdast permitted. In
addition to Court's notice, Petitioner is directed to serve copy of the
Petition along with copy of this order on the Respondent and inform
about the next date of hearing by any permissible mode of service and
file appropriate affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof on or
before the next date.
7. After receiving the notice, Respondent to file affidavit-in-reply
on or before the next date, if so desired with an advance copy to the
Advocate for Petitioner.
8. Respondent is directed to remain present through its authorized
representative or through its Advocate on the next adjourned date. It
is made clear that if Respondent remains absent despite service on the
3 of 4
12. CIVIL WP-11408-25.docx
next adjourned date, this Writ Petition shall be heard and disposed of
at the stage of admission in the absence of the Respondent.
Considering the fact that Complaint has remained pending for more
than 5 years every endeavour shall be made by the Court to dispose of
the Petition at the stage of admission on the next adjourned date.
9. In the meanwhile, proceedings before the Labour Court are
directed to be stayed until the present Petition is determined by this
Court.
10. Stand over to 11th September, 2025.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2025.08.26
19:34:31 +0530
4 of 4
