Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Abhubha Mayabha Kurani on 2 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4153/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4153 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
ABHUBHA MAYABHA KURANI
==========================================================
Appearance:
YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, AGP for the petitioner(s) no. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 02/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated
31.03.2023 passed by the learned Labour Court, Jamnagar in
Reference Case No.3 of 2018, whereby the directions were issued
upon the present petitioners to reinstate the respondent -
workman with 10% back wages and continuity of service.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4153/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
2. It is the case of the present petitioners that as per the claim
made by the respondent, he was working with the petitioners
since 01.04.2002 as a daily wager and drawing the salary of
Rs.8,300/- per month. His service was orally terminated on
01.07.2017, which was challenged before the learned Reference
Court by raising the dispute and the same was registered as
Reference Case No.3 of 2018. The respondent has filed the
statement of claim and the petitioner has filed the written
statement and learned Labour Court, after considering the
evidence adduced, has awarded the reference in favour of the
respondent, which is subject matter of challenge before this
Court.
3. Heard learned AGP Mr. Brahmbhatt for the State.
4. Learned AGP Mr. Brahmbhatt has submitted that no
evidence was adduced by the respondent - workman to show the
continuity of service as defined under Section 25(B) of the Act.
Learned AGP Mr. Brahmbhatt submits that only on drawing the
adverse inference, the impugned award was passed granting the
benefits of reinstatement along with 10% back wages. Learned
AGP Mr. Brahmbhatt submits that it is the duty of the employee
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4153/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
to establish the case and filing an affidavit and relying on the
own statement, which is in his favour, would not be sufficient to
hold that the respondent has completed 240 days service in the
preceding year. Learned AGP Mr. Brahmbhatt submits that as per
his own statement, he did not complete the 240 days in the year
2015-16 as well as in the year 2016-17 and therefore, also he is
not entitled for the relief, which is claimed in the statement of
the claim. Learned AGP Mr. Brahmbhatt states that without
assigning the cogent reasons, the reference was awarded in
favour of the present respondent and therefore, the same is
required to be interfered with and petition is required to be
allowed.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned AGP
Mr. Brahmbhatt and having considered the reasons assigned by
the learned Reference Court, it transpires that the dispute was
raised challenging the oral termination before the learned
Reference Court to show that the respondent has worked
continuously from 01.04.2002 to 01.07.2017. In addition to the
affidavit in form of chief examination, the production application
came to be filed below Exh. 6. The documents, which are sought
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4153/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
to be produced are salary vouchers, Rojmale and Khatavhi etc.,
for the period of 2002 to 2017. Though said application was
ordered in favour of the present respondent neither the order
was complied with nor any affidavit was filed showing the
reasons for non-production of the evidence. In addition to that,
the respondent has stated, on the basis of the information
received in the RTI, the details of the presence in the relevant
years. It is stated by the respondent that in the year 2002 - 03, he
completed 292 days, in the year 2003 - 04, 257 days, in the year
2004-05, 181 days, in the year 2005-06, 128 days, in the year
2006-07, 102 days, in the year 2007-08, 154 days, in the year
2008-09, 150 days, in the year 2009-10, 52 days, in the year 2010-
11, 169 days, in the year 2011-12, 119 days, in the year 2012-13,
no day, in the year 2013-14, 50 days, in the year 2014-15, 234
days and in the year 2015-16, 26 days, as the respondent came
into knowledge that he was changed to the out sourcing agency
in the year 2015-16. Therefore, complaint was filed that, without
his consent, the change was made. The petitioner failed to rebut
the above evidence during the cross-examination of the
workman. Learned Reference Court, relying on the various
decisions, more particularly, in the case of R. M. Yellatti V/s. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4153/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
Asst. Executive Engineer reported in JT 2005 (9) SC 340, has
awarded the reference in favour of the respondent - workman.
This Court is of the view that as the petitioner remained failed in
complying with the directions issued in the production
application and failed in rebutting the evidence which was
produced by the workman to show the continuity of service, no
error has been committed by the learned Reference Court in
awarding the reference in favour of the respondent.
5.1 In that background, this petition being devoid of merits,
hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
Vikramsinh Amarsinh
