Gujarat High Court
Rekhaben Rameshbhai Parmar vs Chief Officer, Mangrol Nagarpalika on 7 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10845/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10845 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
REKHABEN RAMESHBHAI PARMAR
Versus
CHIEF OFFICER, MANGROL NAGARPALIKA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MINI M NAIR(2689) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.ADITYA DAVDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
HARSHESH R KAKKAD(7813) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Kakkad
waives notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1.
Learned AGP Mr.Davda waives notice of Rule on behalf
of State.
2. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, challenging (i) the judgment
and award dated 15.10.2024 passed by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10845/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Review Application No. 1
of 2023 in Reference (IT) No. 43 of 2020; and (ii) the
award dated 31.08.2023 passed by the learned Tribunal
in Reference (IT) No. 43 of 2020, which came to be
declared on 12.09.2023, whereby the reference filed by
the present petitioner came to be dismissed.
3. It is the case of the present petitioner that she was
employed as a Daily Wager on the post of
Tedagar/Pattawala with the Balmandir Division of the
respondent-Nagarpalika since 01.01.2016, and had
completed 240 days of service in each calendar year.
The petitioner holds a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree and
was being paid monthly wages. Seeking benefits of
regularization, the petitioner approached the concerned
Union, which in turn issued a notice dated 10.02.2020 to
the respondent-Nagarpalika, demanding the grant of
regular pay scale and all consequential benefits of
permanency. As no reply was received from the
respondent-Nagarpalika, the dispute was taken before
the learned Labour Commissioner by filing a complaint,
which ultimately culminated in a reference being made
to the learned Industrial Tribunal. In support of her
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10845/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
claim for regularization as well as to support her oral
evidence, the petitioner produced documentary evidence
including: (i) salary bills for the months of July and
August, 2021; (ii) EPF contribution records for the
period from October, 2017 to December, 2022; and (iii)
bank statements for the period from February to
December, 2016 and from January to December, 2021.
However, the learned Industrial Tribunal, after
considering the material on record-- more particularly
the cross-examination of the petitioner--dismissed the
reference, primarily on the ground that the averments
made in the statement of claim were not duly supported
by the petitioner in her cross-examination, which is
subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Ms.Mini Nair for the petitioner
and learned advocate Mr.Harshesh Kakkad for the
respondent No.1.
5. Learned Advocate Ms. Nair, appearing for the petitioner,
submits that although the petitioner possesses a
graduate-level educational qualification, she resides in a
small village and lacked awareness regarding the
consequences of cross-examination. It is further
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10845/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
submitted by learned advocate Ms. Nair that the
petitioner, without fully understanding the questions
posed to her during cross-examination, inadvertently
responded in the negative, which was misconstrued by
the learned Tribunal and formed the sole basis for
dismissal of the reference. Learned advocate Ms. Nair
further submits that if the matter is remanded to the
learned Industrial Tribunal with a direction to permit the
petitioner to lead fresh evidence, the ends of justice
would be met. Learned advocate Ms. Nair points out
that the impugned award is solely based on certain
responses in cross-examination, and no other cogent
reasons have been recorded by the learned Tribunal
while rejecting the petitioner's claim. Therefore, it is
submitted that the impugned award deserves to be set
aside, and the present petition deserves to be allowed.
6. In response, learned Advocate Mr. Kakkad, appearing
for the respondent-Nagarpalika, submits that the
petitioner herself, during the course of cross-
examination, admitted that she could not recollect the
name of the Principal under whom she was allegedly
working as a Tedagar, nor did she have knowledge about
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10845/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
the Balmandir where she claimed to have been
employed. It is further submitted that the documentary
evidence produced by the petitioner in support of the
claim for salary payments was also denied. In this
background, learned advocate Mr. Kakkad contends that
no error has been committed by the learned Industrial
Tribunal in dismissing the reference, and therefore, no
interference is called for.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties, it emerges
that in support of the claim for regular pay and benefits
of permanency, the petitioner had placed on record
various documentary evidence, including bank
statements and salary slips. Despite this, during her
cross-examination, the petitioner stated that she did not
possess any documentary proof of salary payments and
could not recollect the name of the Principal or the
Balmandir where she was allegedly employed. It further
appears from the record that the petitioner was not
made aware of the consequences of cross-examination
and did not properly understand the implications of the
questions posed to her. Although the petitioner's claim
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10845/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
was otherwise supported by documentary evidence, the
learned Industrial Reference Court has dismissed the
reference solely on the basis of her cross-examination.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, it would be in
the interest of justice to afford one more opportunity to
the petitioner to lead evidence afresh. Accordingly, the
present petition succeeds. The impugned award is
hereby quashed and set aside. Reference (IT) No. 43 of
2020 is restored to its original file and is remanded to
the learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, for fresh
adjudication, after permitting both parties to lead fresh
evidence.
9. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case, except on the limited
aspect discussed hereinabove. The learned Industrial
Tribunal shall decide the reference independently and in
accordance with law, based solely on the evidence that
may be adduced by both the parties.
10. Rule made absolute accordingly.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
