Gujarat High Court
Sadabhai Nathabhai Parmar vs Deputy Executive Engineer on 2 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4150 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
SADABHAI NATHABHAI PARMAR
Versus
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ND SONGARA(2198) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS JANHVI N SONGARA(13254) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 02/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated
01.06.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Palanpur, in Reference (LCB) No.35 of
2017, whereby the Reference filed by the petitioner
came to be rejected.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that a dispute was
raised before the learned labour court, which came to be
registered, wherein the statement of claim was filed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
alleging that the respondent had illegally terminated the
service of the petitioner. It was stated that the petitioner
had been continuously serving since 1981 and had
completed 240 days of continuous service. It is further
alleged that while terminating his service, the procedure
prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the
I.D. Act', hereinafter referred to) was not followed.
Therefore, it was prayed that the termination be declared
illegal and the respondent be directed to reinstate the
petitioner-workman.
3. Against the statement of claim, a written statement came
to be filed before the learned labour court, and after
considering the arguments advanced by both the parties,
the learned labour court has rejected the Reference,
which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Songara for the petitioner.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Songara submits that learned
Reference Court has committed an error in dismissing
the Reference on the ground of delay of 18 years in filing
the same. Learned advocate Mr.Songara further submits
that though continuous service was duly proved by the
present petitioner, instead of awarding lump sum
compensation, as was awarded in the identical Reference
filed by the co-employee, the Reference came to be
rejected. Learned advocate Mr.Songara has relied on the
decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
of Uttarakhand Versus Rajkumar reported in 2019
(14) SCC 353 and submitted that in the said case, the
Apex Court has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- compensation for
the tenure of two years of service. It is submitted that
without considering the above aspect, learned Reference
court has dismissed the reference and therefore, same is
required to be set aside and the petition is required to be
allowed.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocate for the petitioner, it emerges from the
record that, in order to prove continuous service, reliance
was placed on the documentary evidence produced
below Mark 25/1/1 to 25/1/2, which are the documentary
evidences obtained during the RTI proceedings. Learned
Reference Court has examined the said evidences and
observed that the said information was sought by one co-
employee, namely, Hasmukhbhai, who had also filed a
separate Reference alleging the illegal termination.
Learned Reference Court has examined Hemrajbhai
Dungarbhai Chaudhary below Exh.24, who is the Deputy
Executive Engineer in the respondent department and
has deposed that the petitioner was serving in the year
1993, 1994 and 1995. However, he pointed out
discrepancies in the muster roll produced by the
petitioner and stated that alterations had been made,
allegedly in connivance with staff members, in order to
falsely establish continuity of service. The said witness
further deposed that the muster roll initially produced at
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
Mark 25/1/1 was directed to be filed, and thereafter, a
new muster roll was prepared and produced at Mark
25/1/2, wherein the continuous service of the present
petitioner could not be established.
7. It is further deposed by the said witness that seniority list
which is produced below Mark 27/2 and as per the claim
made in the statement of claim, the name of the present
petitioner was figured at serial No.109 appears to be a
half document as after serial No.168 directly the serial
No.200 is reflected in the said seniority list and from
serial Nos.169 to 199, the pages were missing. The
respondent has produced documentary evidence in
compliance of the order passed under the production
application below Mark 12/1 wherein, the name of the
present petitioner was shown at serial No.53 and except
in the year 1991, where he has completed 259 days, in
none of the year, the continuous service as required
under section 25(B) of the I.D.Act is completed. As per
the said document the petitioner has completed 109 days
in the year 1998 and 10 days of service in the year 1999
and as per the allegation made in the statement of claim,
termination was done on 31.05.1999. As the petitioner
failed to establish the requirement of section 25(B) of the
I.D.Act therefore, learned reference court has held that
there is no retrenchment as alleged under section 25(F)
of the I.D.Act.
8. In addition to that learned Reference court has dismissed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
the Reference on the ground of delay of 18 years as after
the so called termination on 31.05.1999, the Reference
was filed on 11.04.2018, which is after more than
eighteen years. Relying on the decision rendered by the
Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar vs. Joint Director,
Sericulture Department and another, reported in
(2015) 15 SCC 1 learned Reference court has come to
the conclusion that the dispute cannot be said to be a
live dispute as petitioner did not produce any
documentary evidence to show that the petitioner has
made attempt to resume the duties or made any
representation. In that background, the learned
Reference court has held that the petitioner is not
entitled for any relief as claimed in the reference.
9. The reliance which was placed on the Reference of the
co-employees, namely Hasmukhbhai Hirabhai Sarodariya,
if one would prefer then it appears that the said
employee has established his completion of 240 days on
the basis of the documentary evidence. In addition to
that, learned Reference court has drawn the adverse
inference as the employer did not produce the
documentary evidence, though it was admitted in the
possession during the cross-examination. In that
background, the relief of reinstatement was molded with
the relief of lump sum compensation by the learned
Reference Court. The same is not the case of the
petitioner, therefore, petitioner cannot claim any parity
with the aforesaid award.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
10. In addition to that, judgment which was relied in the case
of Rajkumar (supra), if it would be referred, then in that
case also termination was found illegal due to procedural
defect and therefore, learned Industrial Court has held
that there is a violation of section 25(F) of the I.D.Act and
instead of granting the relief of reinstatement, monetary
compensation of Rs.30,000/- was awarded by the learned
Reference Court which was enhanced by the Apex Court
up to Rs.1,00,000/-.
11. As in the instant case, the petitioner fails to establish the
breach of section 25(F) of the I.D.Act, this Court did not
find any error committed by the leaned reference court in
dismissing the Reference.
12. Resultantly this petition is dismissed. The award
dated 01.06.2024 passed by the learned Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Palanpur, in Reference (LCB) No.35
of 2017 is hereby confirmed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
