Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vijaysinh Navalsinh Vadher on 8 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9211/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9211 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
VIJAYSINH NAVALSINH VADHER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.FORUM BIMAL SUKHADWALA, 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.4 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/9211/2024 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.5,475/- per month. His service
was orally terminated on 01.04.2017, which was
challenged before the learned Reference Court by
raising the dispute and the same was registered as
Reference Case No.4 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.Sukhadwala for the State and
learned advocate Mr.Desai for the respondent.
4. Learned AGP Ms.Sukhadwala 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.Sukhadwala 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9211/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
Ms.Sukhadwala submits that 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.Sukhadwala submits that as per his
own statement, he did not complete the 240 days in the
year 2013-14 as well as in the year 2014-15 and
therefore, also he is not entitled for the relief, which is
claimed in the statement of the claim. Learned AGP
Ms.Sukhadwala 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.5,475/-. On 01.04.2015, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9211/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
terminated. Learned advocate Mr.Desai submits that
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 01.04.2017.
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 to be produced are
attendance sheet, salary vouchers, Rojmale and
Khatavhi etc., for the period of 2002 to 2015. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9211/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
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 2003-04, 255 days, in the year 2004-05, zero day,
in the year 2006-07, zero day, in the year 2007-08, 154
days, in the year 2008-09, 150 days, in the year 2009-10,
51 days, in the year 2010-11, 238 days, in the year 2011-
12, 191 days, in the year 2012-13, 197 days, in the year
2013-14, 76 days and in the year 2014-15, 151 days, as
the respondent came into knowledge that he was
changed to the out sourcing agency in the year 2014-15.
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
and failed in rebutting the evidence which was produced
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9211/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
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
