Gujarat High Court
Petrofils Cooperative Society vs Rashtriya Mazdoor Union on 30 June, 2025
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1503/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1503 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1855 of 2001
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1504 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3105 of 2002
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
4
==========================================================
PETROFILS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY & ANR.
Versus
RASHTRIYA MAZDOOR UNION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ROHAN LAVKUMAR WITH MR AADITYA DAVE FOR NANAVATI
ASSOCIATES(1375) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 30/06/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. On 19.07.2023, this Court has passed the
following order:
"Learned Senior Advocate Mrs. Manisha Lavkumar rightly
points out that though served with the notice of this
Court, which was issued in December 2022, none has
chosen to appear on behalf of the respondent. The
submission is fortified by the endorsement on the
board.
The appeal is admitted. Interim relief granted earlier
shall continue to operate till further orders.
Civil Application will not survive in view of this
above order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1503/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
The order shall remain in the record of the Letters
Patent Appeal."
2. Today, when the matter is taken up for
hearing, the decision remain unaltered as no one
has chosen to enter appearance on behalf of the
respondent.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Lavkumar appearing for
the appellant-Society, while pointing out the
findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal, has
submitted that in fact, the same are erroneous in
nature. It is submitted that the workers of the
respondent-Union were already terminated when the
direction for regularization was issued. It is
submitted that a specific contention was also
taken in this regard and recorded by the Tribunal
however, the Tribunal has not dealt with the
same. It is submitted that reference was made by
the Tribunal relating to pendency of the
reference proceedings before the Labour Court
being Reference (LCV) No.466 of 1991, which is
dismissed for default and Reference (IT) No.26 of
1992, which is withdrawn. It is submitted that
the concerned workmen had challenged their
termination before the Labour Court and hence,
the same would have direct bearing on the
direction issued by the Tribunal directing the
appellant to regularize service of the workmen.
It is submitted that in the reference
proceedings, the workmen had not challenged their
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1503/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
termination and claiming the benefit of
regularization, which is impermissible since the
issue of termination of the workmen was yet to be
answered by the Labour Court in the respective
award however, the Labour Court directed the
appellant-Society to grant regularization to the
workmen, who are already terminated.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant
has further submitted that the learned Single
Judge fell in error in ignoring the vital
aspects, though such contentions were raised in
the writ petition filed by the appellant-Society
challenging the award. He has further submitted
that the appellant has already undergone
liquidation and hence, such directions ought not
to have been issued by the learned Single Judge.
5. We have perused the findings of the Tribunal
in the impugned award as well as findings
recorded by the learned Single Judge. It appears
that the workmen raised industrial dispute with
regard to their regularization of service, which
culminated into reference proceedings being
Reference (IT) No.26 of 1992. The Tribunal, vide
its award dated 12.03.1999, directed the
appellant to regularize the service of the
workmen. However, the Tribunal has simultaneously
refused regularization of service of those
workmen, who were already terminated. The same
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1503/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
gave rise to file two writ petitions, first by
the respondent-Union and second by the appellant-
Society.
6. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the
writ petition filed by the appellant-Society,
whereas the writ petition filed by the respondent
workmen was partly allowed. Before the Labour
Court as well as the learned Single Judge, a
categorical stand has been taken by the
appellant-Society that their workmen, who were
the members of the Union, were already terminated
when the reference proceedings were filed. Such
contention is recorded by the Tribunal in its
award however, it is very interesting to note
that the Tribunal has considered that in case,
termination, which was subject matter of
reference proceedings in Reference (LCV) No.466
of 1991 and Reference (IT) No.26 of 1992 is
decided and set aside, such workmen would be
entitled to regularization of service.
7. In our considered opinion, such observations
recorded by the Tribunal is not legally tenable
as no benefits of regularization can be granted
or conferred to the employees, who were not
before the Tribunal and their termination was
already being examined in the reference
proceeding by the Labour Court. It is also not in
dispute that the reference proceedings being
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1503/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
Reference (LCV) No.466 of 1991 was dismissed for
default, whereas Reference (IT) No.26 of 1992 has
been withdrawn. Thus, the Tribunal has travelled
beyond the scope of reference by issuing such
directions.
8. The learned Single Judge has failed to
appreciate the aforesaid facts contended in the
writ petition. The benefit of regularization, as
conferred by the Labour Court and as confirmed by
the learned Single Judge is not legally tenable.
Though the workmen are directly connected to the
proceedings before the Labour Court in Reference
(LCV) No.466 of 1991 and Reference (IT) No.26 of
1992, the regularization benefit cannot be made
contingent to such reference proceedings. Thus,
no regularization should have been ordered in
case of all those workmen, who are already
terminated and whose termination was a subject
matter of consideration in Reference (LCV) No.466
of 1991 and Reference (IT) No.26 of 1992.
9. In light of the foregoing reasons, the
present appeals succeed and the impugned
judgement and order dated 25.11.2022 passed by
the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ
petitions is hereby quashed and set aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1503/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
Registry to place a copy of this order in the
connected matter.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
NVMEWADA/47,48
