Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhai Ramjibhai Chudasama vs Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest on 2 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/383/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 383 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
BHARATBHAI RAMJIBHAI CHUDASAMA
Versus
PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.ADITYA DAVDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 02/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr.Aditya
Davda waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent-
State.
2. This petition is filed under the Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by
the learned labour court, Junagadh in Reference (T)
No.35 of 2014 dated 22.08.2017 whereby, the reference
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/383/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
filed by the present petitioner came to be rejected on the
ground that there is no illegal termination provided
under section 2(OO)(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act
(hereinafter referred to as the "I.D.Act").
3. The facts of the case is that the petitioner was serving as
a Sweeper from 04.10.1997 with the respondent No.2 at
Junagadh. It is alleged in the statement of claim which is
filed before the learned industrial court that he was
terminated on 19.04.2014 orally without following the
procedure of the Act. The reference came to be filed
with a prayer to reinstate him in the service and to grant
all consequential benefits. The learned reference court,
on considering the cross-examination of the present
petitioner wherein, it is admitted that due to life threat
to the present petitioner on account of filing FIR, he
himself has left Junagadh and was staying at Dhoraji,
where he was working as a Sweeper with other
establishment. Learned reference court, on observing
the same has dismissed the reference which is subject
matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Samir.B.Gohil for the
petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Aditya Davda for State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/383/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
5. Learned advocate Mr.Gohil submits that though
petitioner has served continuously from 1997 to 2010 he
was terminated orally without following due procedure
of law. Learned advocate Mr.Gohil submits that in the
event of breach of section 25(F) of the I.D.Act, if the
learned labour court is unable to grant the relief of
reinstatement, then the same can be molded by granting
the relief of compensation, however, instead of doing so,
learned reference court has dismissed the reference
therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside
by allowing the present petition.
6. As against the same, learned AGP Mr.Davda submits
that learned reference court, after considering the
evidence in detail by assigning cogent reasons has
dismissed the reference, as the petitioner himself has
abandoned the service and there was no termination as
alleged by the present petitioner. Hence, no interference
is required and the petition is required to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocate for the respective parties and on
referring the reasons, it emerges that the statement of
claim filed before the learned labour court below Exh.4
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/383/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
reveals that the date of appointment was in the year
1997 and that of termination as 08.03.2010. During the
cross-examination, as well as on referring the letter
which was addressed by the present petitioner to the
respondent produced below mark 7/5, it emerges that
there was quarrel between the present petitioner and
other person and there was threat to the life, therefore,
petitioner had shifted from Junagadh to Dhoraji. It was
prayed by the present petitioner that he may be
accommodated at Dhoraji instead of Junagadh, however,
considering his service as a Daily Wager, his request
was not exceeded. It also emerges from the record that
during cross-examination, petitioner has accepted that
even today also, he is unable to resume the duty at
Junagadh and on registration of FIR he himself has
abandoned the service from 2010 onwards. In addition
to the abandonment, there is a delay of four years in
filing the reference before the learned labour court
which remains unexplained by the present petitioner. It
is required to be noted herein, that the impugned award
which is passed on 22.08.2017 was challenged by filing
the present petition in the month of December, 2019
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/383/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
which is also after the period of two years. It also
emerges that he was gainfully employed at Dhoraji
which is admitted by him during the cross-examination.
8. Considering the overall facts, this Court is of the view
that there is no infirmity in the impugned award, hence
this petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
10. Rule discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
