Gujarat High Court
Maheshkumar Lavjibhai Parmar vs The Metropol Hotel on 17 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4442/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4442 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
MAHESHKUMAR LAVJIBHAI PARMAR
Versus
THE METROPOL HOTEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 17/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. At the out set it is required to be noted that this Court
has passed an order order on 07.04.2025 directing the
present petitioner to produce the report of MRI and
though thereafter, on various occasions time was
sought, the same is not produced and learned advocate
Mr.Mishra has submitted that the report of MRI is not
available.
2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4442/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed
by the learned labour court in Reference (LCA) No.16 of
2012 dated 25.10.2024 whereby, the reference filed by
the present petitioner came to be rejected.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was
serving in Kitchen as Moriwala from 01.10.2007. As per
the allegation, though the respondent Hotel is a three
star Hotel, they were not giving any casual leave, area
rent and other benefits and on demanding the same,
services came to be terminated from 10.05.2011.
Challenging the said termination, dispute was raised
before the learned reference court which culminated
into reference. Learned reference court, after
considering the evidence adduced and the arguments
advanced, has dismissed the reference which is subject
matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.U.T.Mishra for the petitioner
workman.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that learned
labour court has committed error in observing that
though the petitioner was offered employment after
filing reference, petitioner did not resume the duty.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4442/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that on pursis
being filed on 02.05.2019, learned labour court has
directed the present petitioner to resume the duty and
the petitioner has also resumed the duty on 17.05.2019
and he was posted in housekeeping department. While
cleaning the terrace with acid and phenyl, petitioner
slipped and received injuries and thereafter, took
treatment with the SMS Hospital wherein, he was
advised to take rest for 5 days. Learned advocate
Mr.Mishra submits that the certificate issued by the
Doctor as well as the report of MRI dated 06.06.2019,
though produced before the learned labour court,
learned labour court has by discarding the said evidence
has observed that petitioner did not resume the duty.
Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that without any
cogent reasons, reference was decided against the
present petitioner, therefore, award deserves to be set
aside and petition is required to be allowed.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocate and referring the reasons assigned by
the learned labour court, it emerges that on reference
being filed on 03.01.2012, affidavit is filed and cross
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4442/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
examination was conducted. It is undisputed fact that
petitioner fails to establish the prime requirement of
section 25(B) of the ID Act of completion of 240 days, as
the petitioner neither produced any evidence on record
to establish the completion of 240 days, nor has filed any
application seeking production of documents. Even
before this Court, learned advocate is unable to contend
that petitioner has completed 240 days in any preceding
year. In addition to that the pursis came to be filed
below Exh.10 wherein, employment was offered to the
employee and the learned labour court has observed in
the order dated 02.05.2019 that if the petitioner fails in
resuming the duty, then inference would be drawn that
petitioner is not interested in work. During the cross-
examination of the petitioner, petitioner has admitted
that after 10.05.2011, petitioner did not went to the
Hotel, neither sent any communication permitting him to
resume the duties, that suggests that the order dated
02.05.2019 is not complied by the present petitioner.
However, to test the argument of the present petitioner
that he received injuries while resuming the duty after
02.05.2019, the petitioner was directed to produce the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4442/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
copy of MRI report which also the petitioner is unable to
produce despite sufficient opportunity was granted.
7. In that background, this Court is of the view that the
observation made by the learned labour court that
petitioner is not interested to work and is interested in
getting the monetary benefits is just and proper. Hence,
there is no infirmity in the impugned award and the
petition deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
8. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
