Gujarat High Court
Rollwell Forge Limited vs Dayashankar Pal S/O Ramdhari Pal on 7 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8192/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8192 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8198 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8190 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8195 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8184 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8186 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8204 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8201 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8208 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17685 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
ROLLWELL FORGE LIMITED
Versus
DAYASHANKAR PAL S/O RAMDHARI PAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
RAVI B SHAH(5346) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/05/2025
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:20:44 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8192/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Ravi Shah
waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.
2. These petitions are filed challenging the award passed by
the learned Labour Court dated 18.03.2020, whereby the learned
Labour Court had partially allowed the reference of the
respondent and directed the petitioner to pay the lump-sum
compensation against the illegal termination.
3. It is the case of the present petitioners that respondents
have raised an industrial dispute challenging the termination by
filing the reference, learned Labour Court has granted lump-sum
compensation considering the breach of Rule 81 of the Industrial
Disputes Gujarat Rules, 1966, which is the subject matter of
challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Naidu for the petitioner and
learned advocate Mr. Shah for the respondent.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Naidu submits that the learned
Labour Court has committed error in holding that the employer
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8192/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
has committed breach of Rule 81. Learned advocate Mr. Naidu
submits that, undisputably, the learned Labour Court has
concluded that the termination of the workmen is not in violation
of Section 25 F, G and H of the I.D. Learned advocate Mr. Naidu
submits that in absence of breach of Section 25 F, Rule 81 would
not be attracted and therefore, the learned Labour Court has
committed grave error in awarding the lump-sum compensation
to the respondents - workmen.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Shah submits that initially
the order was passed by this Court allowing the petitions filed by
the employer vide order dated 12.10.2021, which were
challenged by the respondents - workmen by filing the intra
Court appeals being LPA Nos. as under.
SCA No.8192 of 2021 LPA No.887 of 2022
SCA No.8204 of 2021 LPA No.892 of 2022
SCA No.8201 of 2021 LPA No.895 of 2022
SCA No.8190 of 2021 LPA No.893 of 2022
SCA No.8195 of 2021 LPA No.891 of 2022
SCA No.8186 of 2021 LPA No.896 of 2022
Wherein this Court, after considering the fact that the
notices were issued, however, due to covid-19 pandemic,
workmen could not appear before this Court and therefore, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8192/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
matter was remanded back to this Court for fresh consideration.
Learned advocate Mr. Naidu submits that as employer has not
maintained the seniority list of the workmen before retrenching
therefore, the learned Reference Court is justifying in awarding
the lump-sum compensation in lieu of the reinstatement as well
as the back wages.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned
advocates for the respective parties, it emerges from the record
that initially the petitions were filed before this Court by the
employers, came to be allowed vide order dated 12.10.2021,
which were challenged by the workmen by filing the LPAs and
the same were allowed by the Division Bench of this Court and
the matters were remanded back to this Court for fresh
consideration. On perusing the impugned order, it emerges that
learned Reference Court has concluded the reference by holding
that there is no violation with regard to the provision of Section
25 F, G and H, however, relying on the Rule 81 of the Gujarat
Industrial Disputes, the award of the compensation was passed.
This Court has examined the reasons assigned by this Court while
deposing of the matter on 12.10.2021, which is reproduced as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8192/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
under;
"3. This Court has perused the impugned awards. A bare
perusal of the award reveals that the Labour Court has held
that the termination of the workmen is neither in violation of
Section 25F of the ID Act nor any provisions of Sections 25G
or 25H of the ID Act are violated. The Labour Court has set
aside the termination order in view of Rule 81 of the
Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 (for short 'the
rules') which reads as under.
"81. Maintenance of seniority list of Workmen.-(1) The
employer shall, prepare a list of all workmen in the
particular category from which retrenchment is
contemplated arranged according to the seniority of
their service in that category and cause a copy thereof
to be posted on a Notice Board in conspicuous place in
the premises of the industrial establishment at least
seven days before the actual date of retrenchment."
4. A bare perusal of the rule will clarify that the same
pertains to the preparation of the seniority list of those
workmen whose retrenchment is contemplated and
accordingly, the same shall be effected looking to their
seniority. In the present case, unquestionably, the
retrenchment has been held to be valid and not in violation
of any provisions of Section 25G or 25H of the ID Act. The
provision of Rule 81 will not be attracted in the present
case, in wake of the fact that the provisions of Sections
25G and 25H of the ID Act are not violated."
8. However, the concerned workmen for the below
mentioned matters did not file any such appeals and had
accepted the same.
2. SCA No.8208 of 2021
3. SCA No.8198 of 2021
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8192/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
4. SCA No.17685 of 2021
9. This Court is of the view that when there is no violation of
Section 25 F, G and H, no question arises for attracting the Rule
81 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which is for maintaining the
seniority list of the workmen whose retrenchment is
contemplated. In absence of violation of Section 25 F, G and H, in
the opinion of this Court, the Rule 81 of the Gujarat Industrial
Disputes Rule, 1966 would not be applicable.
10. In that background, learned Labour Court has committed
error in awarding the reference in favour of the respondents,
hence present petitions deserve to be allowed by setting aside
the impugned order passed by learned reference Court dated
18.03.2020. These petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute.
11. Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in
connected matters.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
Vikramsinh Amarsinh
