Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Sureshbhai Dharmabhai Parmar on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7389/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7389 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SURESHBHAI DHARMABHAI PARMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAVAL PARMAR, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the award passed by
the learned Labour Court at Palanpur dated
04.09.2024, whereby the learned Reference Court
has allowed the Reference being Reference (LCB)
No.37 of 2023 and directed the present petitioner to
reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages and
continuity of service.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7389/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
2 It is the case of the present petitioner that the
respondent was serving as a labour-cum-watchman
since 13.01.1998 and was terminated on 01.10.2004.
Challenging the order of termination, Reference
No.70 of 2005 was filed, wherein a settlement was
arrived at between the parties, and the petitioner
agreed to take the respondent back in service.
Accordingly, pursis below Exhibit 10 was filed
withdrawing the Reference before the learned Labour
Court. It was also agreed between the parties that
the benefit of continuity of service would be given.
2.1. Thereafter, the respondent was reinstated, but
again terminated on 10.12.2012, which became
the subject matter of Reference No.13 of 2013.
However, the said Reference was dismissed by the
learned Labour Court on 08.10.2015 as the
respondent did not remain present.
2.2. Subsequently, the respondent was again taken
back into service, and after completing 25 years of
continuous service, was once again terminated on
19.01.2023, which is the subject matter of the
present impugned Reference. The learned
Reference Court, after considering the evidence
adduced by both parties, decided the Reference in
favour of the respondent by granting the relief of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7389/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
reinstatement with 50% back wages, and the same
is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3 Heard the learned AGP Mr.Dhaval Parmar for the
State.
4 Learned AGP Mr. Parmar submits that respondent
No.1 manipulated the documents at the time of
verification by striking out the name of another
person and inserting his own name. In this regard, he
had submitted an apology letter accepting the
mistake on 13.01.2023. Learned AGP Parmar further
submits that with a view to avail the benefit of
regularization, the said mischief was committed in
the cash book, and therefore, no relief can be
granted in favour of a person who has attempted to
forge official records.
4.1. Learned AGP Mr.Parmar further submits that
without taking into consideration such mischief
and the apology letter given by the wife of the
respondent, the learned Reference Court has
granted relief in favour of the respondent.
Therefore, the impugned award is required to be
set aside by allowing this petition.
5 Having considered the arguments advanced by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7389/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
learned AGP Mr.Parmar, it emerges from the record
that the Reference was filed challenging the order of
termination passed by the petitioner on the ground
that the respondent had entered his name in the
cash book in place of another employee and had
attempted to secure the benefit of regularization on
the basis of the said cash book.
5.1. To establish the charge, the petitioner examined
Prakashbhai Dungarbhai Chaudhary, the Range
Forest Officer serving at Wadgam Extension
Range, as a witness below Exhibit 70. During the
course of cross-examination of this witness, the
respondent succeeded in establishing that he had
served from 13.01.1998 to 19.01.2023.
5.2. It is also admitted that previously, an order of
termination had been passed on 01.10.2005, for
which Reference No.70 of 2005 was filed. In that
proceeding, a settlement was arrived at, and the
respondent was taken back into service on
30.04.2010.
5.3. It is further admitted that, as per the muster roll
produced below Mark 12/1, the respondent worked
for 312 days during the period from 01.10.2021 to
30.09.2022. It is also admitted that regarding the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7389/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
allegation of forgery, an FIR was filed, but no FIR
came to be registered by the police.
5.4. It is admitted that before the termination of the
respondent, neither was any departmental inquiry
initiated, nor was any notice or retrenchment
compensation paid. It is also admitted that the
work performed by the respondent is perennial in
nature and that daily wagers employed through
contractors continue to be engaged.
5.5. As the respondent established continuity of
service before the learned labour Court through
the documentary evidence produced below Exhibit
22, the learned labour Court proceeded to
examine the compliance with Section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act. It is an undisputed fact
that, regarding the alleged forgery, neither was
any departmental inquiry conducted nor was any
FIR ultimately registered. Furthermore, the cash
book in which the alleged forgery was said to have
occurred was not produced as part of the record
before the learned labour Court.
5.6. So far as the apology letter is concerned, it was
contended by the respondent employee before the
learned labour Court that his signature had been
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7389/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
obtained on a blank paper and that he had not
made any alteration in the cash book.
5.7. On referring to the said apology letter, the
learned labour Court has concluded that the letter
appears to have been written in two different
handwritings. In addition, it merely mentions that a
mistake was committed, without specifying the
nature of such mistake. The said letter was also
produced before this Court by the learned AGP
Mr.Parmar. However, on perusal of the same, this
Court is of the view that, in the absence of any
specific admission, reliance cannot be placed on it
to conclude that any alteration was carried out by
the respondent. Furthermore, it is alleged that
during the verification of the cash book in
presence of Mr. K.M. Joshi, who was the Range
Forest Officer, the respondent's name was inserted
in place of another employee. However, neither
Mr. Joshi was examined before the learned labour
Court nor was it clarified that who the other
employee was in whose place the respondent's
name was allegedly inserted.
6 In the absence of any reliable evidence, the learned
Reference Court has held that the termination was
effected in violation of the provisions of Section 25F
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7389/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
of the Industrial Disputes Act.
7 This Court is of the view that, in the absence of any
infirmity in the impugned award, it is not open for
this Court to exercise its powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition, being
devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed.
8 Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
