Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Solanki Chetan Govindbhai on 14 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11326/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11326 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SOLANKI CHETAN GOVINDBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.FORUM BIMAL SUKHADWALA, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 14/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, challenging the judgment
and award dated 20.12.2021 passed by the learned
Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (T) No.116 of
2018, whereby the learned Labour Court has directed
the petitioner to reinstate the respondent to his original
post, without granting any back wages.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that, as per the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11326/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
claim made before the learned Labour Court, the
respondent had alleged that he was employed by the
petitioner from 13.10.2011 to 30.11.2014 and had
completed more than 240 days of continuous service. It
was further alleged that his services were terminated
without following the due procedure prescribed under
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequently, the
respondent raised an industrial dispute seeking
reinstatement with consequential benefits, which led to
the initiation of Reference (T) No.116 of 2018 before the
learned Labour Court. Upon appreciation of the
evidence adduced by both parties, the learned Labour
Court passed an award in favour of the respondent,
directing his reinstatement without back wages. The
said award is the subject matter of challenge in the
present petition.
3. Heard learned AGP Ms.Forum Bimal Sukhadwala for the
State.
4. Learned AGP Ms.Sukhadwala submits that the learned
Labour Court has committed an error in granting the
relief of reinstatement without considering the fact that
the respondent had not completed 240 days of service in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11326/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
each year. Learned AGP Ms.Sukhadwala submits that, as
per the respondent's own case, he was engaged as a
daily wager, and in the absence of compliance with the
essential requirement under Section 25(B) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the learned Labour Court
erred in awarding reinstatement. It is therefore
submitted that the impugned award is unsustainable in
law and deserves to be set aside by allowing the present
petition.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned
AGP and upon perusal of the reasons assigned by the
learned Labour Court, it emerges that, pursuant to the
reference being filed, the respondent submitted a
statement of claim at Exh.7, alleging that he was
appointed as a Computer Operator on 13.10.2011 and
had worked continuously up to 30.11.2014. He further
alleged that, despite having completed 240 days of
continuous service, his services were terminated without
following the due procedure prescribed under the
Industrial Disputes Act. In support of the averments
made in the statement of claim, the respondent adduced
oral evidence, and the petitioner produced the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11326/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
attendance record at Exh.10. Upon referring to the said
record, it is evident that the respondent completed 267
days of service during the period from 01.10.2012 to
30.09.2013 and 275 days from 01.10.2013 to
30.11.2014. Since the alleged termination took place on
30.11.2014, the relevant preceding year would be 2013-
14, during which the respondent had completed 275
days of service. On the basis of the established
continuous service, it was the respondent's case that the
termination was effected without compliance with
Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said
contention has not been controverted by producing the
evidence on record in the nature of notice or
retrenchment compensation. The only objection raised
by the petitioner was with regard to the delay of three
years in raising the dispute. The learned Labour Court,
while considering the aspect of delay, allowed the
reference by directing reinstatement of the respondent,
but without awarding back wages.
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned
Labour Court has rightly maintained a balance by
denying the relief of back wages, taking into account the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11326/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
delay of three years in filing the reference. Since the
learned Labour Court has passed the award in favour of
the respondent after assigning cogent and well-reasoned
findings, and this Court does not find any infirmity in the
impugned award, the petition filed by the State appears
to be devoid of merits and accordingly deserves to be
dismissed.
7. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
