Gujarat High Court
Maruti Piston (P) Ltd vs Parmar Bharatkumar Parshottambhai on 18 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5224/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5224 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
MARUTI PISTON (P) LTD.
Versus
PARMAR BHARATKUMAR PARSHOTTAMBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 18/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned
Labour Court, Kalol dated 15.05.2024 in Reference (LCK) No.64 of
2016 whereby learned Labour Court has directed the present
petitioner to reinstate the respondent - workman with 50% back
wages with continuity of service.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5224/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
was serving with the present petitioner since 03.07.2017 and
when he went to the office of the ESI for taking the treatment
amount, the office of the ESI - Authority has informed to the
respondent that the company has not paid the amount and the
fact that when it was conveyed to the present petitioner, the
service of the present respondent came to be terminated.
Challenging the order of the termination, the dispute was raised
which was culminated in the reference and the learned
Reference Court, after considering the evidence adduced by both
the parties, has awarded the reference in favour of the present
respondent by directing the present petitioner to reinstate the
respondent with 50% back wages, which is the subject matter of
challenge before this Court.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra for the petitioner - Employer
submits that the petitioner is ready to permit the respondent to
join the duty, however, after the award is passed, the respondent
did not approach and therefore, he has not been joined to the
service. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits that the date of
termination is mentioned different at different places, therefore,
learned Labour Court has committed an error in believing the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5224/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
illegal termination in absence of the specific date. Learned
advocate Mr. Mishra submits that there was no termination at
the behest of the present petitioner, however, respondent
himself has abandoned the service and after taking the
treatment, he never resumes the duty with fitness certificate.
Learned advocate Mr Mishra submits that without considering
the said aspects, learned Labour Court has allowed the reference
in favour of the present respondent and therefore, the same is
required to be set aside by allowing the present petition.
4. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned
advocate Mr. Mishra and reasons assigned by the learned
Reference Court, it emerges that the respondent joined with the
present petitioner on 03.07.2007, the continuous service of 240
days is not disputed by the present petitioner during the
reference proceedings. The only ground which is raised before
the Court as well as before the learned Reference Court, is that
petitioner has not terminated the services of the respondent,
respondent himself has abandoned the service and at different
places, the date of termination is stated different. So far as the
abandonment aspect is concerned, learned Reference Court has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5224/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
considered the evidence which is in nature of the treatment
papers, produced below Exh.22, suggesting that petitioner was
under the treatment of the doctor for piles surgery on
12.05.2016, 27.05.2016 and 06.06.2016. Mark 20/1 and 20/2
suggest that muster-roll and wage register showing that
petitioner was in employment till 15.04.2016. The certificate
issued by the doctor for remaining on leave suggests that the
petitioner was under the treatment in the hospital from
05.05.2016 to 15.05.2016, 12.05.2016 to 18.05.2016, 20.05.2016
to 26.05.2016, 30.05.2016 to 05.06.2016 and 06.06.2016 to
09.06.2016 and Mark 20/4 suggests that respondent was advised
to rest from 14.04.2016 to 10.06.2016. The fitness certificate was
also produced before the learned Reference Court suggesting
that the respondent was fit for the work in the end of month of
May and beginning of June, 2016. Cross examination conducted
by the present petitioner of the respondent also reveals that
after the treatment was over when the respondent went to the
petitioner - establishment, petitioner did not permit the
respondent to resume the duty. So far as the different date at
different places is concerned, on referring the evidence of the
present petitioner, it is emerged that petitioner himself has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5224/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
admitted that up to 15.04.2016, respondent was under the
employment and date thereof was supported by the muster roll
which was produced below Exh.20/2. Merely mentioning the
different dates, in the opinion of this Court, would not render
ineligible the petitioner from getting the relief of reinstatement.
5. In that background, no error has been committed by the
learned Reference Court in granting the relief of reinstatement
with 50% back wages. So far as the contention with regard to the
non-joining after the award is passed, if considered then it
emerges from the record that the petitioner has not produced
any communication on record to show that the respondent has
been informed by the present petitioner to join the duty and
therefore also, petition is not deserved to be interfered with.
6. Resultantly, present petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
Vikramsinh Amarsinh
