Gujarat High Court
Lok Prakashan Limited vs Thakor Rajeshbhai Popatlal on 30 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1414/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1414 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
LOK PRAKASHAN LIMITED & ANR.
Versus
THAKOR RAJESHBHAI POPATLAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR SWAPNIL H CHAUHAN(5959) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 30/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the
learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.675 of
2001 dated 22.11.2019, whereby the petitioner was directed to
reinstate the respondent - workman with 25% back wages.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that a dispute was
raised before the learned Reference Court by the respondent -
workman, alleging that the respondent was working with the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1414/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
petitioner - establishment on the post of Machine Operator since
the last 24 years and getting the wages of Rs.18,000/-. On raising
the demand for a wage rise, his service was terminated on
13.06.2001 and therefore, a complaint was made before the
learned Assistant Labour Commissioner. Before the learned
Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner had contended that there
was no order of termination passed against the present
respondent; however, his service was transferred to the Bombay
Branch vide communication dated 30.06.2011, where instead of
reporting for duty at the said branch, the dispute was raised. The
learned Labour Court, on considering the submissions made by
the parties as well as the evidence adduced, has awarded the
reference in favour of the respondent, which is the subject
matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati with
learned advocate Mr. Naidu for the petitioner and the learned
advocate Mr. Chauhan for the respondent.
4. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Nanavati submits that on
being transferred on 30.06.2011, the respondent did not report
for duty and though the respondent was informed subsequently
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1414/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
vide a communication dated 11.02.2019 i.e., after the award was
passed up to the period of 2021, the respondent did not report
for duty at the transferred place. The learned Senior Advocate
Mr. Nanavati submits that with regard to the wage rise for which
victimization was alleged is concerned, during the cross-
examination of the respondent, he admitted that I was getting
the wages according to the Wage Commission's Report. The
learned Senior Advocate Mr. Nanavati submits that when the
condition was stipulated in the appointment order that he could
be transferred to any place, it was the bounden duty of the
respondent to report on the duty at the transferred place.
However, instead of reporting for duty, he raised a false claim
before the learned Labour Court, claiming illegal termination,
which was allowed and therefore, the impugned award deserves
to be set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, the learned advocate Mr. Chauhan
appearing for the respondent submits that the so-called transfer
order was produced as an afterthought defence after the dispute
was raised before the learned Reference Court. The advocate Mr.
Chauhan submits that if the respondent did not report for duty,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1414/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
then appropriate proceedings could have been initiated and after
following the principles of natural justice, his service ought to
have been put to an end. However, straightaway on his raising a
demand for a wage rise, the petitioner has orally terminated the
service of the respondent. The learned advocate Mr. Chauhan
submits that the said so-called transfer order was never served to
the present respondent. The learned advocate Mr. Chauhan
submits that respondent has served for 24 years on the post of
Machine Operator with the petitioner - establishment was at one
place and there was no reason mentioned for transferring him to
Mumbai and that too on paying the same wages. The learned
advocate Mr. Chauhan submits that the learned Court, after
assiging the detailed reasons, has passed an awared, directing
the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 25% back wages,
which was also not implemented for the period of 5 years and on
filing the recovery application, in which the order was passed in
favour of the respondent, the present petition is filed. The
learned advocate Mr. Chauhan submits that during the pendency
of the petition, the respondent was reinstated in service on
02.08.2021 and towards the back wages, the amount was
deposited pursuant to the direction issued by this Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1414/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
Therefore, the learned advocate Mr. Chauhan submits that no
interference is required and the present petition is required to be
dismissed.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned
advocates for the respective parties and on referring to the
reasons assigned by the learned Reference Court, it emerges that
the respondent was appointed on the post of Machine Operator
vide order dated 28.09.1986. As per the appointment order, his
service can be transferred, as mentioned in Clause No.2. As per
the transfer order dated 13.06.2011, his service was transferred
with immediate effect at Mumbai. However, to establish that the
respondent was having knowledge with regard to the transfer
order, no documentary evidence was placed before the learned
Labour Court. It emerges that on raising the grievance before the
learned Commissioner, the petitioner raised his defence that the
respondent did not report for duty as per the transfer order and
that there is no order passed terminating the service of the
respondent. However, as observed by the learned Reference
Court, for not reporting for duty, neither was any notice issued
nor were any departmental proceedings initiated. In addition to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1414/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
that, except to cross-examine the respondent, no evidence was
adduced by the petitioner to substantiate his defence with
regard to the transfer. The respondent was serving on the post
of Machine Operator and getting wages of Rs.18,000/-. In the
opinion of this Court, a person who is working in the Ahmedabad
since 24 years doing the work of cleaning of Machine oiling,
brushing, collecting the waste and doing miscellaneous work was
transferred to Bombay on paying the same wages with Rs.300/-
extra as a special allowance monthly would smack act of
victimization, as wage rise demand was raised by the present
respondent. Additionally, during the pendency of the petition,
the respondent has resumed to the duty on 02.08.2021 as well as
amount of Rs.3,45,250/- was deposited with the Registry of this
Court towards 25% back wages.
6.1 In that background, this Court does not deem it fit to
entertain the petition, as the respondent was working as on date
as well as the petitioner has also not established his defence with
regard to the transfer successfully before the learned Court
below.
7. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed. Notice stands
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1414/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.
8. The amount as deposited before this Court towards 25%
back wages till the date of award shall be disbursed in favour of
the respondent after due verification with accrued interest
thereon.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
Vikramsinh Amarsinh
