Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bhupatsinh Navalsinh Vadher on 8 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9489/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9489 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
BHUPATSINH NAVALSINH VADHER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.DIXA PANDYA, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR CHINTAN N DESAI(9940) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 08/08/2025
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.2 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/9489/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
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.2 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 Ms.Pandya for the State and learned
advocate Mr.Desai for the respondent.
4. Learned AGP Ms.Pandya 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 Ms.Pandya 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 Ms.Pandya submits that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9489/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
it is the duty of the employee 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 Ms.Pandya 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 Ms.Pandya 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. Learned advocate Mr.Desai appearing for the
respondent submits that the respondents were working
on daily wage basis since 01.04.2002 and were getting
monthly wages of Rs.8,300/-. On 01.07.2017, without
any procedure being followed, his services were
terminated. It is submitted that though the respondent
had completed 240 days in each year, his services were
terminated. Learned advocate Mr.Desai submits that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9489/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
production application came to be filed seeking
production of wage register, present roaster, cash book
etc. for the period of 2002-15 which was not complied
with and therefore, learned court is justifying in passing
the impugned order, hence no interference is required.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned
advocates for the respective parties 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. 7.
The documents, which are sought to be produced are
attendance sheet, salary vouchers, hishabi Rojmade,
Khatavahi 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9489/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
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 236 days, in the year 2003-
04, 26 days, in the year 2004-05, 130 days, in the year
2005-06, 128 days, in the year 2006-07, 206 days, in the
year 2007-08, 104 days, in the year 2008-09, 150 days,
in the year 2009-10, 156 days, in the year 2010- 11, 197
days, in the year 2011-12, 141 days, in the year 2012-13,
148 days, in the year 2013-14, 230 days, in the year
2014-15, 227 days and in the year 2015-16, zero day, 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9489/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
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.
7. In that background, this petition being devoid of merits,
hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
9. It is expected that the petitioner Authority would comply
with the award passed by the learned labour court
immediately, preferably within 12 weeks from today.
10. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
11. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
