Gujarat High Court
Jagdishbhai Laxmanbhai vs The Presiding Officer on 19 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7140/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7140 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
JAGDISHBHAI LAXMANBHAI
Versus
THE PRESIDING OFFICER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 19/06/2025
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 whereby the Reference filed by
the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that the
petitioner failed to establish the employer-employee
relationship by adducing sufficient evidence.
2. The gist of the case is that, as per the claim of the
present petitioner, he was employed with respondent
No.2 as a grinder from 26.11.2013 to 04.11.2016 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7140/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
was being paid minimum wages of Rs.210/- per day. It is
the case of the petitioner that his services were orally
terminated on 05.11.2016. Challenging the said
termination, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute
before the learned Reference Court, which came to be
registered as Reference (T-LC) No.339 of 2017. The
learned Reference Court, after hearing both parties and
considering the evidence on record, rejected the claim of
the petitioner and passed an award against him vide
order dated 26.02.2024, which is the subject matter of
challenge before this Court.
3. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Hakim for the petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Hakim submits that though the
identity card was produced before the learned Reference
Court, the Court held that no evidence was adduced to
establish the employer-employee relationship. Learned
advocate Mr. Hakim further submits that the Reference
was previously allowed in favour of the present
petitioner, wherein the learned Reference Court had
granted 50% back wages along with the relief of
reinstatement. However, the said ex parte award was
challenged by filing an application under Rule 26A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the I.D. Act' hereinafter),
which came to be allowed, and thereafter the impugned
award came to be passed. Learned advocate Mr. Hakim
submits that the impugned award has been passed
without assigning any cogent reasons, and therefore, the
same is required to be set aside by directing the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7140/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all
consequential benefits.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocate and on referring to the reasons
assigned by the learned Reference Court, it emerges that
a claim was made by the present petitioner that he was
serving as a grinder and getting the wages of Rs. 290/-. It
is the claim of the present petitioner that though he
served continuously from 20.09.2012 to 04.11.2016, his
services came to be terminated violating the provisions
of the I.D. Act.
6. It is further the case of the petitioner that the identity
card indicating the date of joining as 26.11.2013 was not
duly considered by the learned Reference Court.
However, the learned Reference Court, relying on the
cross-examination of the petitioner, recorded that no
documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the
claim of service since 26.11.2013. The petitioner also
admitted that in the I.D. card register marked as Exhibit
16/1, his name does not appear. Though the petitioner
asserted that his name was reflected in the wage
registers marked as Exhibits 16/7 to 16/9, the learned
labour Court, in paragraph 6 of the impugned award,
specifically noted that no documentary evidence was
produced by the workman. Furthermore, the petitioner
himself stated in paragraph 3.1 of his pleadings that no
I.D. card had been issued to him and that his name was
not recorded nor was his signature obtained in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7140/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
muster roll and salary registers. The cumulative effect of
the evidence on record demonstrates that the
petitioner's name did not appear in either the I.D. card
register or the wage registers.
7. This Court has considered the decision rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Range Forest Officer
vs S.T. Hadimani, reported in 2002 (3) SCC 25,
wherein it has been held that the onus lies upon the
claimant to establish the case. In the absence of any
evidence, no relief can be granted in favour of the
petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner neither filed any
application seeking production of relevant documents nor
discharged the burden of proof placed upon him.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, no
error has been committed by the learned Labour Court in
rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
8. In the absence of any infirmity, this Court does not find
any merit in the submissions advanced. Hence, the
present petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
