Gujarat High Court
M/S Diamond Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd vs Ramesh Sunrendrasinh on 2 July, 2025
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/453/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 24/06/2025
Pronounced On : 02/07/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 453 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17192 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 453 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 454 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17189 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 454 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17189 of 2024
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 455 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16447 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 455 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16447 of 2024
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 456 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17191 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 456 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17191 of 2024
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 457 of 2025
In
Page 1 of 11
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:52:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/453/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17185 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 457 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17185 of 2024
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 458 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17195 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 458 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17195 of 2024
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 459 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17194 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 459 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17194 of 2024
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 460 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17187 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 460 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17187 of 2024
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 461 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17190 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 461 of 2025
Page 2 of 11
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:52:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/453/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17190 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
M/S DIAMOND TEXTILE MILLS PVT. LTD.
Versus
RAMESH SUNRENDRASINH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHALIN MEHTA SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR ROHAN A SHAH(7497)
for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR JWALIT B SONEJI for the Respondent no.1.
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
By way of the captioned group of Letters Patent Appeals, the
appellant-original petitioner challenges the common judgment and order
dated 22.01.2025 passed by learned Single Judge, dismissing Special
Civil Application No.17192 of 2024 and allied matters, whereby the order
dated 30.09.2024 passed by the appellate authority directing to pay
gratuity to the tune of Rs.2,68,268/- along with 10% interest from
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/453/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
01.01.2015 till date of realization came to be confirmed. Since the present
group of LPAs are filed challenging the common order passed by the
learned Single Judge in a group of captioned SCAs, the facts stated in
LPA No.453 of 2025 are taken as a lead matter.
2. Brief facts; as stated in the pleadings are that the respondent No.1
submitted the application in Form No."I" on 13.06.2019 claiming that the
respondent No.1 joined with the appellant - Company on the post of Flat
Belt Machine Operator in the Printing Department with effect from
01.03.1984 and claimed that his service came to be terminated with effect
from 31.12.2015 and his last drawn salary was Rs.15,000/- per month.
Form No."N" was also submitted to the Controlling Authority, which
came to be registered as Gratuity Case No.201 of 2019, where the
appellant appeared and filed the written statement.
2.1 The respondent No.1 filed the affidavit in the form of examination-
in-chief as well as placed on record the evidence of Shri Mithileshsinh
Kameswarsinh in the form of affidavit through the evidence of the said
witness along with documentary evidence; however before the
Controlling Authority, the said witness was not cross-examined by the
appellant as, at the relevant time, there was lock down due to COVID-19
Pandemic, the stage of cross-examination of the said witness was closed,
however the application by the appellant was filed on 27.07.2020
requesting to reopen the stage and permit the said witness to be cross-
examined. Thereafter, the appellant filed an affidavit of the witness as
well as the written argument before the Controlling Authority; the
Controlling Authority passed an order on 29.08.2020 directing the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/453/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
appellant to pay a sum of Rs.2,68,268/- along with 10% interest from
05.07.2019 i.e. the date of filing of the application.
2.2 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Controlling
Authority, the respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before Appellate
Authority being Appeal No.103 of 2020. The Appellate Authority, after
hearing the parties, was pleased to pass an order on 29.04.2021 and
remanded the matter back to the Controlling Authority to decide the same
afresh. Dissatisfying with the said order of remand, Special Civil
Application No.8385 of 2021 was filed, which came to be partly allowed
and by a common order dated 01.04.2022, it was remanded back to the
Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh.
2.3 The appellant preferred an appeal under Section 7(7) of the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 before the Appellate Authority, which
came to be registered as Appeal No.67 of 2022 in Gratuity Case No.201
of 2019 challenging the directions issued for payment of the gratuity. The
Appellate Authority, by an order of 24.04.2023, rejected the appeal
preferred by the appellant, as also the respondent. Challenging both the
orders passed by the Appellate Authority, the appellant preferred Special
Civil Application No.12058 of 2023, while the respondent preferred
Special Civil Application No.15594 of 2023 before this Court; wherein
both the petitions filed by the appellant and respondent no.1 were ordered
to be remanded back to the Appellate Authority to hear the same afresh
and to decide the same on merits.
2.4 The Appellate Authority passed an order on 30.09.2024 rejecting
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/453/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
the appeal filed by the appellant, while allowing the appeal filed by the
respondent directing to pay amount of Rs.2,68,268/- with 10% interest
from 01.01.2015, which came to be challenged by way of preferring
Special Civil Application No.17192 of 2024 and allied matters, which
came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge by passing a common
judgment and order dated 22.01.2025 therein. Hence, under these
circumstances, the captioned LPAs are filed challenging the common
judgment and order passed in the groups of petitions.
3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta appearing with
Mr.Rohan Shah, learned advocate for the appellant and learned Advocate
Mr.Jwalit B Soneji appearing for respondent no.1 - contesting respondent
and learned AGP Ms.Shruti Dhruve.
4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehta with Mr.Shah, learned
advocate for the appellant has taken this Court through the several
material placed on record and submitted that respondent no.1 was never
the workman discharging his duties with the appellant; neither any
appointment order nor any termination order has ever been issued by the
appellant to respondent no.1 and, therefore, the question of termination of
service of respondent no.1 does not arise at all.
4.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehta has further submitted that the
copy of the Wage Register produced and relied upon by the respondent
no.1 is also forged and concocted, which otherwise belong to one Shri
Mithileshsinh Kameswarsinh, wherein also the name of respondent no.1
is not reflecting and, therefore, the bone of contention of the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/453/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
no.1, being workman of the appellant, is sham and bogus, as there is an
admission on part of the respondent no.1 in the evidence recorded before
the Controlling Authority of having worked with one Shri Mithileshsinh
Kameswarsinh, which is self-explanatory of the respondent no.1 having
never worked with the establishment of the appellant.
4.2 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehta for the appellant has further
submitted that even no such opportunity has been afforded to the
appellant before the Controlling Authority as to right of the appellant to
cross-examine respondent no.1 came to be closed and the application
moved by the appellant remained undecided and the matter came to be
decided only on the written submissions filed by the respective parties
and, therefore, the conclusion arrived at and confirmed by the learned
Single Judge is bad in law.
4.3 The next contention raised by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehta
for the appellant is in regards to delay caused in preferring the application
by the respondent no.1 i.e. before Controlling Authority, after expiry of
period of five years, which is against the provisions of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972 and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single
Judge requires interference as there is no relationship of the appellant and
respondent no.1 as employer and employee; nor there being any material
substance reflects on record as only on the basis of the copy of Wage
Register, that too, being forged and concocted, which ought not to have
been relied upon by the Tribunal, in light of the fact that the claim raised
therein is raised at such a belated stage being devoid of merits, hence
requires to be rejected at the threshold. Learned Senior Advocate
Mr.Mehta has further submitted that as per the claim of the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/453/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
no.1, he having served with the appellant from 01.03.1984 to 31.12.2014
and thus, on the aspect of delay also, the claim of the respondent no.1 is
not tenable in the eye of law.
4.4 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehta has further submitted that
respondent no.1 was not serving with the appellant, rather serving with
one Shri Mithileshsinh Kameswarsinh, who was a contractor and as such
the said person was not engaged in any capacity nor having vested with
any such authority by the appellant in that regard and, therefore, the
responsibility and the claim raised by the respondent no.1 cannot be
thrown on the shoulder of the appellant.
4.5 By making the above submissions, learned Senior Advocate
Mr.Mehta appearing with Mr.Shah, learned advocate for the appellant,
would submit to allow this appeal and to quash and set aside the order
passed by the learned Single Judge.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Soneji appearing for
respondent no.1 would submit that the learned Single Judge has, after
considering the material available on record, passed a detailed common
order and this Court therefore may not interfere with the findings of the
learned Single Judge. He has submitted that respondent no.1 has proved
that he had worked with the appellant by way of supporting evidence and
the Controlling Authority, after considering the evidence adduced before
it, has passed the order of awarding gratuity with interest, which has been
thoroughly examined by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.
He would therefore submit that this Court may not entertain the present
group of appeals and dismiss the same.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/453/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
6. Learned AGP Ms.Shruti Dhruve appearing for the respondent
nos.2 - State would submit to pass a necessary order.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and examined the order passed by the appellate authority, which
has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge, this Court does not find
any substance in the present group of appeals.
8. Insofar as the contention of the appellant as regards lack of
employer and employee relationship between the appellant and
respondent no.1 is concerned, it appears from the record that huge
material seems to have been placed on record in the form of Wage
Register, which is fortified by the fact that salary was paid to respondent
no.1 through one Shri Mithileshsinh Kameswarsinh, who though alleged
to have been shown as a contractor; however in absence of any written
contract or licence of he being the contractor, the Controlling Authority
has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant. The dispute agitated with
regard to Shri Mithileshsinh Kameswarsinh, being the contractor, and not
appointed by the appellant; nor authorized either to issue any ID Card and
to do only administrative work for and on behalf of the establishment is
concerned, nothing sort of any cogent material has surfaced from the
record in the form of licence or copy of contract to establish the said fact.
On the contrary, on a perusal of the material placed on record such as the
Wage Register and pension papers, proves the factum of bearing the
signature of the said witness - Shri Mithileshsinh Kameswarsinh, which is
sufficient to establish the relationship of the appellant with respondent
no.1 as employer and employee. Moreover, as discussed by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/453/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
Single Judge, that nothing sort of any material is brought on record in the
form of contract executed by and on behalf the appellant with the said
Shri Mithileshsinh Kameswarsinh. On the contrary, Shri Mithileshsinh
Kameswarsinh appears to be serving with the appellant since 1983 in the
Printing Department and his service was put to an end on 30.06.2015 and,
therefore, the contention raised by the appellant that the said person being
the contractor and has no nexus with the appellant would not found any
leg to stand rather falsify the claim of the appellant.
9. It is pertinent note here and as rightly recorded by the learned
Single Judge that the appellant - establishment used to contribute the
funds in the P.F. Department and respondent no.1 produced the Wage
Register for the period of 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000 and 01.04.2003 to
31.03.2004 and 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005, which is having the stamp and
seal of the appellant-establishment, which includes the name of the
respondent no.1 along with other workers. More consciously as emerges
from record, one more name referred in the Wage Register, namely,
Promodsinh Jaynarayansinh, who had also claimed to be workman of the
contractor, has been paid the amount of gratuity by way of cheque on
06.01.2022 by the appellant - establishment.
10. Now, insofar as the aspect of depriving the appellant from the
cross-examination of respondent no.1 and witnesses are concerned, the
same also does not find any credence as on the basis of consensus arrived
at between the parties, the written submissions have been submitted and
nowhere, the appellant seems to have raised the said issue, except filing
of application and it is only after offering an opportunity to the parties
concerned and with the consent of the parties, the matter came to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/453/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
disposed of; in accordance with the law, which shows the approach of the
appellant having not taken pain to pursue the issue.
11. Insofar as the issue agitated by the appellant of moving the
controlling authority at belated stage i.e. after a lapse of five years is
concerned, the same does not inspire any confidence as it becomes
incumbent upon the appellant to pay the amount of gratuity to the
workman, if the workman has worked beyond the period of five years;
within a period of 30 days and since the provision of the Payment of
Gratuity Act is the benevolent and the beneficiary provisions
incorporated for the employer, in such situation raises at belated stage by
the appellant seems to have been raised just for the sake of reason to give
away from the liability to pay the amount of gratuity.
12. Thus, the learned Single Judge has in detailed dealt with all these
aspects and came to the conclusion and this Court is in complete
agreement with the said findings.
13. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons recorded by the learned
Single Judge, the present appeals are devoid of merits and does not merit
acceptance. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
14. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the connected applications
are also dismissed.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
sompura / 1- 9
