Gujarat High Court
Hotel Green View vs Pritika Pavan Sharma on 24 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3349/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3349 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
HOTEL GREEN VIEW
Versus
PRITIKA PAVAN SHARMA
================================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SIMRAN PAHWA FOR THAKKAR AND PAHWA ADVOCATES(1357) for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 24/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner - Company 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
20.09.2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Valsad in Reference (LCV) No. 72 of 2016, whereby, the learned Judge
had directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman on
her original post with continuity of service and 100% backwages. The
petitioner has further challenged the judgment and order dated
25.08.2023 passed by the Labour Court, Valsad in Misc. (Restoration)
Application No. 186 of 2021, whereby, the restoration application
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3349/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
came to be rejected.
2. Brief facts leading to the present petition are that, the
petitioner is an inoperative hotel and the respondent approached the
Labour Commissioner stating that she was 31 years old and she was
working as a receptionist with the petitioner since 01.08.2008 and
was terminated orally on 03.11.2015 without any plausible reason and
without following the due process of law, which culminated in the
Reference (LCV) No. 72 of 2016, wherein the respondent filed her
Statement of Claims and improvised on the termination by stating
that she was not paid salary for the months of September, 2015 and
October, 2015 and upon demanding the same, the petitioner
terminated her orally. That, the petitioner was facing various legal
cases before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other courts.
That, the responsible officer of the petitioner had also passed away
hence, the notice of the Court did not reach the responsible officer,
which led to closing of stages before the Labour Court and ultimately
an ex parte award came to be passed on 20.09.2019, published on
08.11.2019. That, the petitioner came to know about the same on
03.01.2020 and then approached the Labour Court by way of filing
Misc. (Delay) Application No. 17 of 2020 and Misc. Application for
restoration of the main reference vide Application dated 15.03.2020
after receipt of certified copy of the record and getting legal guidance.
That, the Labour Court condoned the delay by imposing cost of Rs.
7,500/- vide Order dated 01.10.2021. That, the petitioner filed a
detailed application in the Misc (Restoration) Application No. 186 of
2021 inter alia mentioning the reasons for non-appearance, produced
all the documents in support of contentions including the brief
summary of litigations between 2013 to 2020, notices under the
SARFAESI Act whereby, possession was taken, matters before the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3349/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
Hon'ble Supreme Court, Orders for hearing the matters of the
petitioner expeditiously etc., however, the Labour Court took a hyper
technical view and arrived at a finding that the action of the petitioner
was unforgivable and accordingly, rejected the restoration Application
without dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner vide
order dated 25.08.2023.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Award passed in
Reference and the order passed in Misc. (Restoration) Application No.
186 of 2021, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
4. Heard Mr. Yogi Gadhia, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Ms. Simran Pahwa, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Gadhia has submitted that an ex-parte
Award was passed by the Labour Court without affording proper
opportunity to the petitioner to defend the case. He has submitted
that in the delay condone application, the Labour Court had imposed
cost of Rs.7,500/-, which was already deposited by the petitioner and
the same was withdrawn by the respondent. He has further submitted
that the petitioner has also deposited an amount of Rs.15,000/- before
this Court towards cost, as per the order passed by this Court, which
is lying with the Registry of this Court. Learned counsel Mr. Gadhia
has therefore, urged that the impugned Award and the order passed
by the Labour Court be quashed and set aside and the present
petition be allowed.
6. As against that, learned counsel Ms. Simran Pahwa, appearing
for the respondent, has strongly and vehemently opposed the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3349/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
petition and submitted that the original proceedings are of the year
2016 and since long, no payment has been received by the
respondent from the petitioner and she is litigating all the way and
therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the present
petition and the present petition be dismissed.
7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also
considered the facts of the case and the impugned Award and the
order passed by the Labour Court, Valsad. The fact remains that the
impugned Award was passed ex-parte without affording proper
opportunity to the petitioner in the proceedings which were initiated
way-back in the year 2016 and therefore, petitioner is required to be
heard by giving proper opportunity to defend its case and thus, the
matter is required to be remanded back to the concerned Labour
Court for deciding the issue afresh.
8. In the result, the present petition is partly allowed. The
impugned judgment and award dated 20.09.2019 passed by the
learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Valsad in Reference (LCV) No.
72 of 2016 as well as the judgment and order dated 25.08.2023
passed by the Labour Court, Valsad in Misc. (Restoration) Application
No. 186 of 2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. The original
Reference is restored to its file. The matter is remanded back to the
concerned Labour Court to decide the original Reference afresh. The
same shall be decided by the Labour Court in accordance with law,
within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of order of
this Court, considering the fact that the respondent is litigating since
2016 and almost 10 years have been passed. Rule is made absolute
to the aforesaid extent.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3349/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
8.1 It is observed that it is open for both the parties to raise all the
contentions available under the law before the concerned Labour
Court and the Labour Court shall decide the same after giving ample
opportunity to both the sides. It is also further observed that both the
parties shall cooperate with the Labour Court and shall not seek
unnecessary adjournments. If need be, the petitioner may file written
statement to oppose the proceedings filed by the respondent before
the Labour Court and lead documentary as well as oral evidence
before the Labour Court.
8.2 The amount deposited by the petitioner shall be disbursed in
favour of the respondent alongwith interest accrued on it, through
Account Payee cheque in favour of the respondent, after following due
procedure and after verifying her bank details.
Direct service is permitted.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
