Gujarat High Court
Shramjivi Kamdar Union vs Velani Engineers on 16 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/819/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 819 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
SHRAMJIVI KAMDAR UNION
Versus
VELANI ENGINEERS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PRIYANK P JHAVERI(5303) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 16/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(1) Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocates
Mr.Thakkar and Mr.Jhaveri waives service of notice of
Rule on behalf of the respective parties.
(2) The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order
passed by the learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad on
26.11.2024, rejecting the application filed by the present
petitioner seeking an adjournment for producing the
addresses for the issuance of summons to the witnesses
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/819/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
who are supposed to be examined by the petitioner..
(3) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner
raised an industrial dispute seeking a wage rise and other
general demands through the labour union, which was
registered as Reference (LCAD) No.3 of 2010. The
petitioner filed the statement of claim on 10.03.2011,
and the written statement by the respondent was filed on
03.12.2013. On 05.12.2021, an affidavit in the form of a
chief examination was filed by the petitioner.
Subsequently, evidence from eight witnesses was filed on
19.09.2024. After the completion of cross-examination,
the applications to reopen the stage below Exhibit 76 and
to seek an adjournment to procure the addresses of the
proposed witnesses, who are Government Labour Officers
to whom the petitioner seeks to issue the summons, were
rejected on 26.11.2024, which is the subject matter of
challenge before this Court.
(4) Heard the learned advocate Mr.U.T.Mishra for the
petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Thakkar for the
respondent.
(5) Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that the
present petitioner has raised the dispute seeking a wage
rise and upon filing the statement of claim on
10.03.2011, the stage of written statement came to be
closed due to non-appearance of the respondent.
However, stage was reopened, and after two years of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/819/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
statement of claim, the written statement was filed by
the respondent on 03.12.2013. Learned advocate
Mr.Mishra submits that due to change in the Union, there
was some delay in the proceedings, however, the said
delay cannot be attributed solely to the present
petitioner. The delay occurred due to default of the
respondent, which led to the closure of the stage of the
written statement, which was reopened after two years
and it was filed before the learned labour Court.
(5.1) Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that the
Government Labour Officers, whose evidence is
necessary before the learned Reference Court, were
proposed to be examined because in the past,
prosecutions were lodged under the Payment of
Wages Act. During the cross examination of the
witness of the respondent, the said facts were denied.
Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that
Mr.M.C.Shah, who is the Government Law Officer, is
required to be examined by the workman to
demonstrate that the required wage register, bonus
register, etc., have not been filed and that penalties
were imposed for this default by the criminal court.
(5.2) Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that during the
cross examination of the witness of the respondent, all
questions regarding the production of certain
documents were answered in negative form.
Therefore, the petitioner proposes to produce the said
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/819/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
documents through the Government Labour Officer.
Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that the
grievance of the petitioner pertains to the employer
having paid less than minimum wages, and hence, the
evidence of the said witnesses is relevant. Learned
advocate Mr.Mishra submits that that multiple
breaches have been committed by the employer, and
in order to place such evidence on record, the
examination of the Government Officers is necessary.
However, without considering the same, learned
Reference Court has rejected the application filed by
the present petitioner. Therefore, the interference is
required and petition deserves to be allowed.
(6) As against the same, learned advocate Mr.Thakkar
appearing for the respondent submits that the statement
of claim filed by the workman through Union in the year
2011 was amended, and a similar demand was placed
through amended statement of claim in the year 2017.
Learned advocate Mr.Thakkar submits that the Reference
is pending since last 14 years due to non-cooperation of
the petitioner Union. Learned advocate Mr.Thakkar
submits that so far as the prosecution, which is sought to
be relied by the Union is concerned, it was not for the
non-payment of the minimum wages, but it was for the
non-production of the relevant documents within the
prescribed in time.
(6.1) Learned advocate Mr.Thakkar submits that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/819/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
application below Exhibit 58, which was filed to join
the third Union by the workmen, was allowed by
observing the delay, on the condition to conclude the
Reference on or before 31.08.2024. Learned advocate
Mr.Thakkar submits that another application was
subsequently filed below Exhibit 73 on 19.09.2024 to
place on record the evidence of other workmen.
Learned advocate Mr.Thakkar submits that the said
application was rejected by the learned Reference
Court, observing that the cross-examination of the sole
witness, namely Sumanbhai Makwana, below Exhibit
51 had already been concluded. Considering that the
Reference had already been delayed by 14 years and
as per the observations made in the order below
Exhibit 67 the proceedings were to be concluded by
August 2024, the adjournment sought for leading
additional evidence was rightly rejected.
(6.2) Learned advocate Mr.Thakkar submits that
thereafter on the same day i.e. on 19.09.2024, the
order was passed by the learned Reference Court
allowing the petitioner to produce the evidence of the
witnesses till 05'O clock on that very day.
Subsequently, an order was passed below Exhibit 1 on
19.09.2024, closing the stage of the petitioner's
evidence. Learned advocate Mr.Thakkar submits that
thereafter the application below Exhibit 76 was filed by
the petitioner seeking reopening of the stage of
evidence of the petitioner wherein the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/819/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
Reference Court has reopened the stage vide order
dated 30.09.2024 till the end of that day and the said
order was seen by the representative of the Union.
Learned advocate Mr.Thakkar submits that thereafter,
evidence of the eight witnesses were filed containing
20 pages on 30.09.2024 and the cross examinations of
the said witnesses were concluded by 26.11.2024.
However, thereafter, the petitioner filed an application
below Exhibit 94 seeking adjournment to procure the
addresses of two Government Labour Officers namely,
Mahendrasinh Shah and Babubhai Prajapati, who had
visited the premises of the employer as the petitioner
wants to examine the said witnesses and for that
summons is required to be issued on the same
addresses.
(6.3) Learned advocate Mr.Thakkar submits that the
learned Reference Court has observed on the same
day i.e. on 26.09.2024 that the application was filed
after rojkam was completed, and without filing the
application for taking the matter on board. Since the
evidence of the petitioner had already been closed,
and in absence of application for reopening the stage
of evidence, the adjournment application came to be
rejected. Learned advocate Mr.Thakkar submits that
thereafter another application was filed requesting to
take the matter on board and seeking to reopen the
stage of the evidence of the petitioner however, both
the applications were rejected by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/819/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
Reference Court considering the length of the delay
and the conduct of the representative of the
petitioner-Union.
(6.4) Learned advocate Mr.Thakkar submits that all the
relevant documentary evidence, including wage slips,
bonus slips, etc. has already been placed on record
before the learned Reference Court. In absence of any
cogent reasons placed before the learned Reference
Court to examine the said witnesses, no error has
been committed by the learned Reference Court in
rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.
Learned advocate Mr.Thakkar submits that the
petitioner wants to delay the proceeding of the learned
Reference Court and therefore, learned Reference
Court has rightly rejected the application after giving
ample opportunities to the petitioner to adduce the
evidence on record and therefore, no interference is
required in the impugned order.
(6.5) Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar submits that, in the
absence of any cogent reasons, the scope of the
petitioner's case cannot be enlarged, and therefore,
the petition deserves to be rejected
(7) Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties, the
checkered history which are narrated hereinabove
suggests that the Reference for wage revision is pending
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/819/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
since 2010. It appears that during the pendnecy of the
Reference, two Unions were changed, and the learned
Reference Court has permitted third Union to represent
the case of the workmen. It is an undisputed fact that
while allowing the application to join the third Union, the
learned Reference Court, in its order dated 29.09.2024,
passed below Exhibit 58, observed that Reference has
remained at the stage of evidence of petitioner since
2010. It is further observed that though the Union has
changed, but representative, namely Shantaram
Chaudhary has remained the same for the all period.
(8) Considering the welfare legislation of the Industrial
Disputed Act, the learned Reference Court has allowed
the application observing that the evidence for the
workmen shall be concluded on or before 31.08.2024. It
is also undisputed that the evidence of the sole witness
was filed below Exhibit 67 on 06.08.2024 and the cross
examination of the said witness was concluded on
12.09.2024. Thereafter, on 19.09.2024, an application
below Exhibit 73 seeking adjournment was filed, which
was rejected and consequently, the stage for leading
evidence on behalf of the workmen came to be closed.
Subsequently, on 30.09.2024, an application below
Exhibit 76 was filed seeking to reopen the stage of
evidence of the petitioner. The learned Reference Court,
in its order dated 30.09.2024, observed that at 4:20p.m.,
the affidavits in form of chief examination of eight
witnesses were produced without assigning any reasons
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/819/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
for the delay. However, with a view to give the final
opportunity, the stage for recording of the evidence was
reopened till the rise of the Court on 30.09.2024. On the
same day, the evidence of the witnesses below Exhibits
77 to 85 was produced, and the matter was adjourned to
17.10.2024 for the purpose of cross examination of the
said witnesses.
(9) The respondent has concluded the cross
examination of all the witnesses on 26.11.2024 and
thereafter the matter was placed for the evidence of the
employer. On the same day, at 4:15p.m. an application
was filed by the petitioner seeking an adjournment for
procuring the addresses of the witnesses, who are
supposed to be examined. The learned Reference Court
rejected the application on the same day i.e. 06.11.2024
on the technical ground that it was filed after the rojkam
was prepared and in the absence of an application for
reopening of the stage, the adjournment application
cannot be allowed. On the very day i.e. 26.11.2024 , the
another application was filed below Exhibit 95 requesting
to take the matter on board, which came to be rejected
on the ground that rojkam had already been prepared.
Thereafter, another application below Exhibit 96 was filed
at 5:25p.m. to take matter on board and another
application, below Exhibit 97, was filed on 26.11.2024 to
reopen the stage which was closed in absence of the
petitioner and by order dated 27.11.2024, the learned
Reference Court rejected the prayer to reopen the stage
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/819/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
for leading evidence on behalf of the petitioner and to
take matter on board, as the learned Court was in video
conference organized by the High Court celebrating the
constitution day, order was passed on the next day.
(10) It is an undisputed fact that the case has been
pending for the last 15 years and could not be concluded
due to various reasons, more particularly, due to non-
cooperation appears on the part of the petitioner.
However, the respondent has also attributed to some
extent as initially the stage of the written statement was
closed, which was reopened after two years, facts remain
that the matter could not be proceeded further and the
learned Reference Court, under the pressure of dispose
of the target case, declined to grant further time or to
reopen the stage of evidence.
(11) The relevancy of these two witnesses, if one would
examined in light of the submissions made by the
learned advocates for the respective parties, then it
reveals that during the cross examination, the questions,
which were put with regard to the visiting of the
Government Labour Officer, the prosecution, which was
initiated, the wage register sought to be produced, the
demand notice was issued and compliance report is
required to be filed, were answered in negative form.
(12) At this stage, Rule 17 of the Industrial Disputes
(Gujarat) Rules is required to be referred, which is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/819/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
reproduced hereinbelow:
"17. Evidence-A Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal
or an arbitrator may accept, admit or call for evidence
at may stage of the proceedings before it, or him and
in such manner as it or he may think fit."
(13) The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a welfare
legislation enacted with the object of protecting the
rights of the workmen. However, at the same time, no
one can be permitted to take undue advantage of the
provisions of law, and once the proceedings are initiated,
it is the duty of the parties to cooperate with the Court in
the process of rendering justice. In the present case, the
learned Labour Court, instead of examining the relevancy
and necessity of the evidence sought to be produced,
proceeded on a technical ground by observing that since
the application was filed after the rojkam was prepared
and in the absence of an order reopening the stage of
evidence, the adjournment for examining the said
witnesses could not be granted.
(14) This Court is of the view that if these witnesses are
permitted to be examined and their evidence is placed on
record, though the decision may not be solely based on
such evidences, the evidentiary values of these witnesses
will have to be appreciated by the learned Labour Court
on the merits of the documents and the oral evidence
adduced in that regard along with the other evidence
already on record. While determining the real issue
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/819/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
involved in the order of Reference no prejudice would be
caused to the employer, as the employer would have full
opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses and lead
rebuttal evidence, if necessary. However, if the said
witnesses are not permitted to be examined, in the
opinion of this Court, there exists a real possibility of
causing injustice to the petitioner.
(15) It is true that the learned Labour Court was gracious
enough to provide ample opportunity to the petitioner to
adduce evidence. However, with a view to provide one
more opportunity, and considering Rule 17 of the
Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, which empowers the
Labour Court to call for any evidence at any stage of the
proceedings if the facts and circumstances so demand,
and in order to meet the ends of justice and for just and
proper decision of case, the application requires to be
allowed and accordingly, the petitioner is required to be
granted one more opportunity to examine the witnesses
relevant to the subject matter of the Reference.
(16) For the reasons stated above, the present petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 26.11.2024 passed
by the learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad is hereby
quashed and set aside. The learned Labour Court is
directed to reopen the stage for the petitioner to adduce
his evidence and to examine the witnesses as stated in
the application below Exhibit 94. It is observed that the
Reference is of the year 2010 therefore, the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/819/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
Labour Court shall conclude the proceedings as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. It is further clarified that the learned Labour Court
shall decide the Reference strictly in accordance with
law, without being influenced by any observations made
herein on merits.
(17) Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
