Gujarat High Court
Vimlaben Ranchhodbhai Chauhan vs Ideal Sheet Metal And Stamping Pvt. Ltd on 25 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7005/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7005 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
VIMLABEN RANCHHODBHAI CHAUHAN
Versus
IDEAL SHEET METAL AND STAMPING PVT. LTD.
==========================================================
Appearance:
AAKASH D MODI(7449) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 25/06/2025
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 in Reference Case No.1229 of
2019 dated 18.03.2024 whereby, the reference filed by
the present petitioner came to be rejected.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that petitioner was
serving with the respondent since last 20 years and his
services came to be terminated by the respondent on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7005/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
01.10.2018, without following the due procedure under
the Act. Challenging the order of termination, dispute
was raised before the Conciliation Officer, Porbandar
which culminated into reference being Reference (I.T.)
No.1229 of 2019. Learned reference court, after
examining the evidence placed on record, has awarded
the reference against the present petitioner which is
subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Akash Modi for the
petitioner.
3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Modi submits that respondent,
though filed the written statement, however, did not
produce any oral evidence on record to rebut the claim
of the present petitioner with regard to the continuity of
the service and with regard to the violation of provision
under section 25(F) of the ID Act. Learned advocate
Mr.Modi submits that the pay slip which was given by
the respondent was produced below Exh.12, however, in
the said pay slip neither the name of Company, nor the
details with regard to the payment was stated. Learned
advocate Mr.Modi has relied on the decision rendered
by this Court in the case of Principal, S.V.Doshi Girls
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7005/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
High School and Anr. Versus Lilaben Sonabhai
Gadasa reported in 2008 (1) G.L.H. 286 and
submitted that if the workman has proved his case by
oral evidence and his case was not correct according to
the record of the employer, then employer shall have to
produce entire record before the Court, otherwise
adverse inference must have been drawn against the
employer as required under section 114 of the Evidence
Act. Learned advocate Mr.Modi submits that instead of
drawing adverse inference for not producing any
rebuttal evidence, claim of the present petitioner came
to be rejected, hence impugned order is required to be
interfered with and the petition is required to be
allowed.
4. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocate for the petitioner and on referring the
reasons assigned by the learned labour court, it emerges
that as per the claim of the present petitioner he was
serving since last 20 years and performing cleaning
work at the respondent establishment. It is submitted by
the workman before the learned labour court that his
service was terminated in violation of provision of the ID
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7005/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
Act on 01.10.2018. In support of his claim, the pay slips
were produced which is exhibited below Exh.12,
however, on referring the pay slips which is also a part
of the record of this petition, nothing, except the name
of the present petitioner and the amount paid is
mentioned. In absence of any details with regard to the
respondent establishment or any stamp, signature of the
Authorized person, learned labour court has rightly
discarded the said evidence. In addition to above it was
contended by the learned advocate Mr.Modi that though
respondent employer has filed written statement,
however, no oral evidence or any documentary evidence
has been placed on record to rebut the claim of the
present petitioner. If this argument is tested with the
evidence of the present petitioner, then petitioner in his
statement of claim has neither referred any date or year
of appointment, nor has placed any documentary
evidence before the learned labour court. In absence of
specific averments with regard to the joining date and
details of the employer, no question arises for rebutting
the claim of the present petitioner. Merely mentioning
that he is working since 20 years would not suffice in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7005/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
opinion of this Court to conclude the evidence in favour
of the present petitioner.
4.1. It is undisputed fact that to call for the record from
the employer, any production application is filed or there
is any order in favour of the present petitioner, in that
background no adverse inference can be drawn against
the present respondent employer. So far as the reliance
which is placed on the judgment reported in 2008 (1)
G.L.H. 286 (supra) is concerned, it was the case before
the Coordinate Bench of this Court that the workman
was in service from 1997 to 14.09.2005 as a Peon,
thereafter, she was appointed from 2001 to 14.09.2005
at S.V.Doshi Girls High School and thereafter, workman
has examined two witnesses below Exh.29 and 30. In
that background this Court has held that as no
documentary evidences were placed on record to
disprove the claim of the workman, adverse inference
ought to have been drawn. In the instant case, except
the statement made by the present petitioner, no other
documents were adduced, hence the judgment would
not help the present petitioner in getting a favorable
order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7005/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
5. In view of the above, this petition does not requires to be
entertained, hence it deserves to be dismissed.
6. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
