Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rameshbhai Kanabhai Gharsanda on 19 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/113/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 113 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAMESHBHAI KANABHAI GHARSANDA & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS RAJVI SHAH, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Petitioner(s) No.
1
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 19/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner - State of Gujarat
under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred
to as "the Act") challenging the impugned judgment and award dated
31.01.2020 passed by the learned Labour Court, Junagadh in
Reference (T.) No. 46 of 2019, whereby, the learned Judge had partly
allowed the Reference preferred by the respondent-workman and has
directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman with
continuity of service but, without any backwages.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/113/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :
2.1 That, the respondent was working with the petitioner since June,
1999 to May, 2004 and September, 2013 to February, 2017 as Daily
Wager and was drawing Rs.5,487/- per month. Thereafter, his services
were terminated orally on 22.07.2017. That, the respondent was sent
to various offices for work as per requirement. Being aggrieved by the
same, the respondent raised industrial dispute before the learned
Labour Court, Junagadh by filing claim statement. That, the petitioner
opposed the claim of the respondent way by filing written statement
before of the learned Labour Court. That, the respondent had
produced documents showing number of days worked with the
petitioner at Ex.20 to 98. That, the petitioner had also produced
tarijparata at Ex.99 showing number of days worked by the
respondent in various years. That, the learned Labour Court vide
judgment and award dated 31.01.2020 allowed the claim of the
respondent and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent
with continuity without back wages and has further awarded cost of
Rs.1000/- to be paid to the respondent.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and award dated 31.01.2020 passed by the learned Labour Court,
Junagadh in Reference (T.) No. 46 of 2019, the petitioner has
preferred this petition.
4. Heard Ms. Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader,
appearing for the petitioner-State and Mr. Samir B. Gohil, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-workman.
5. Learned AGP Ms. Patel has submitted that the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is erroneous, illegal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/113/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
and contrary to the facts and records of the case. She has submitted
that though sufficient documentary evidence was produced before the
Labour Court with regard to the fact that the respondent-workman
had not worked for continuous period of 240 days in any year of his
service with the petitioner, however, the Labour Court without
considering this fact has passed the impugned judgment and award
and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman
alongwith benefits of continuity of service but, without backwages,
which is illegal, erroneous and unjust. She has submitted that the
respondent-workman was never terminated but, he had stopped
reporting to his duty voluntarily, however, the Labour Court, without
considering this fact has passed the impugned judgment and award.
She has further submitted that the petitioner has proved the fact
before the Labour Court that the respondent-workman has not
completed 240 days in each calendar year, however, the Labour Court
has partly allowed the Reference filed by the respondent-workman.
Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned
AGP Ms. Patel has urged that the impugned judgment and award be
quashed and set aside and the present petition be allowed.
6. As against that, Mr. Samir Gohil, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent-workman, has submitted that there is no any infirmity
or any illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by the
Labour Court and therefore, no interference is required to be called
for in the present petition. Learned counsel Mr. Gohil though has not
filed affidavit-in-reply but, urged that the impugned judgment and
award passed by the Labour Court is in consonance with the settled
principles of law and is passed after following due procedure and
therefore, the same is required to be confirmed and the present
petition is required to be dismissed and no interference is required to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/113/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
be called for while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also
considered the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour
Court, more particularly the observations made in para-12.3, wherein
the Labour Court has observed that the respondent-workman was in
continuous service with the petitioner and has completed 240 days in
each calender year, however, though this fact was established by the
petitioner by producing documentary evidence, the Labour Court
while passing the impugned judgment and award has granted
benefits of continuity of service without backwages, which in my
opinion is illegal and unjust and only to that extent interference is
required to be called for by this Court. Though this fact was
established by the petitioner, the Labour Court has belied that the
action of the petitioner to relieve the respondent-workman is in
contravention to the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act but, there
was no sufficient reasons recorded by the Labour Court, however,
though the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment and
award before this Court, the petitioner has already reinstated the
respondent-workman and right now he is working with the petitioner.
The Labour Court has also not granted backwages, however, it was
not challenged by the respondent-workman by way of filing petition.
So far as the observations made by the Labour Court with regard to
benefits of continuity of service is concerned, in my opinion the same
is required to be quashed and set aside.
8. In the result, the present petition is partly allowed. The
observations made by the Labour Court in the impugned judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/113/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
and award dated 31.01.2020 passed in Reference (T.) No. 46 of 2019
with regard to benefits of continuity of service is hereby quashed and
set aside. The rest of the award is upheld. Rule is made absolute to
the aforesaid extent.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
