Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat Through Range Forest ... vs Puniyabhai Fulajibhai Vasava on 20 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7998/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7998 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH RANGE FOREST OFFICER, SAGAI &
ANR.
Versus
PUNIYABHAI FULAJIBHAI VASAVA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.ADITYA DAVDA, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 20/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the award passed by
the learned labour court, Narmada in Reference (L.C.B.)
No.21 of 2015 dated 30.03.2022 directing the present
petitioner to reinstate the respondent No.1 to his
original post with continuity of service and without back
wages.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7998/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that respondent
No.1 was working as a Forrest Guard since 05.04.2004
and was getting daily wages of Rs.226.80/-. His services
were orally terminated on 01.05.2014 and therefore,
challenging the termination, the Reference was filed by
the respondent which was numbered as Reference
(L.C.B.) No.21 of 2015. Learned labour court, after
considering the evidence adduced by the present
petitioner as well as the respondent, has awarded the
reference in favour of the respondent which is subject
matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned AGP Mr.Aditya Davda for the petitioner.
3.1. Learned AGP Mr.Davda submits that burden of proof
to establish the continuity of service of 240 days is on
the respondent workman, however, without discharging
the said burden, the onus was shifted on the present
petitioner which is contrary to the decision rendered by
the Apex Court in various cases. Learned AGP Mr.Davda
further submits that in each and every case, even if the
breach of section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 is established, then also, the relief of reinstatement
cannot be automatically granted and therefore, learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7998/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
reference court has committed an error in granting the
relief with continuity of services and same is required to
be interfered with by allowing the present petition.
4. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned AGP Mr.Davda and on referring the reasons
assigned by the learned reference court, it emerges that
respondent was serving as a Forrest Guard since
05.04.2004 and was terminated on 01.05.2014. To
establish the continuity of service, reliance was placed
by the workman on muster roll as well as the wage
register below mark 36/1 and 36/2 and the petitioner is
not able to rebut the said evidence by placing any
contrary fact. In absence of any rebuttal of the said
evidence, learned reference court has believed the case
of the workman with regard to the continuity of service
of 240 days. On fulfilling the criteria mentioned under
section 25(B) of the ID Act, the learned reference court
has proceeded to examine the reference with regard to
the breach of section 25(F) of the ID Act . It is
undisputed fact that the petitioner herein has neither
issued any notice, nor paid any retrenchment
compensation which is required under section 25(F) of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7998/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
the ID Act and therefore, awarded the reference in
favour of the respondent by granting the relief of
reinstatement with continuity of service. However,
learned reference court has not awarded any back
wages considering the fact that no evidence was
adduced by the present respondent to establish gainful
employment during the interregnum period.
5. In the opinion of this Court, no error has been
committed by the learned reference court in awarding
the reference being Reference (L.C.B.) No.21 of 2015
dated 30.03.2022 in favour of the respondent. Hence, as
no infirmity is found in the award passed by the learned
labour court, this petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
