Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Karansinh Popatbhai Rathod on 3 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1504/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1504 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1505 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1527 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1530 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1531 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1542 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KARANSINH POPATBHAI RATHOD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAVAL A PARMAR ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
JWALIT B SONEJI(7895) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
SMIT VAGHELA FOR MR VAIBHAV VYAS for the Respondent(s) No.1
In Special Civil Application No. 1542 of 2024
MR HARSH SHAH, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Petitioner(s)
No.1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 03/10/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1 Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocates
Mr.Soneji as well as Mr.Smit Vaghela waive service of
notice of Rule on behalf of the respective
respondents.
2 Since the issue raised in the these petitions are
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1504/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
similar, they are being decided by a common
judgment. The facts of Special Civil Application No.
1504 of 2024 are taken for the purpose of
adjudication.
3 This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the order dated
27.06.2023 passed in Complaint No.4 of 2024 in
Reference (ID) No.19 of 2022 by the learned
Industrial Court, Bhavnagar, whereby the present
petitioner has been directed to reinstate the
respondent within a period of 30 days from the date
of receipt of the order, with back wages.
4 It is the case of the present petitioner that, as per the
allegation made by the respondent, the respondent
was serving since 1995 as a daily-wager on the post
of Watchman and was being paid wages of Rs.6,000/-
per month. Since, despite long service, the
respondent was not regularized, Demand Reference
being Reference (ID) No.19 of 2022 came to be filed
on 16.03.2022 seeking the benefit of regularization.
On filing the said Reference, the services of the
respondent were orally terminated on 11.04.2022
without following the procedure prescribed under
Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act. Accordingly, a
complaint under Section 33A came to be filed, which
was allowed, and the same is the subject matter of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1504/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
challenge before this Court.
5 Heard the learned AGPs Mr.Parmar and Mr.Harsh
Shah for the petitioner and the learned advocates
Mr.Soneji and Mr.Smit Vaghela for the respondents.
6 Learned AGP Mr. Parmar submits that the primary
contention with regard to the existence of an
employer-employee relationship was not adjudicated
by the learned Reference Court by framing a
separate issue. Learned AGP Mr. Parmar submits that
when the very relationship of master and servant is
under challenge, the burden squarely lies upon the
respondent to establish the same by adducing cogent
evidence. Learned AGP Mr. Parmar, while relying
upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. vs.
State of Tamil Nadu and Others, reported in
(2004) 3 SCC 514, submits that in absence of
discharge of such burden, the learned Reference
Court has committed an error in granting the relief of
reinstatement in exercise of powers under Section
33A of the I.D. Act.
6.1 It is further submitted by the learned AGP Mr.
Parmar submits that in the year 2020, a contract
was given for supply of manpower to Shri Kerala
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1504/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
Pratapara Vejodari Minor Sinchai Mandal, which
was extended from time to time, and as the said
Mandal had supervision and control over the
employees, no relief could have been granted
against the present petitioner. Reliance is also
placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of General Manager (OSD), Bengal
Nagpur Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon vs. Bharat
Lal and Another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 635,
wherein the factors to be considered for
determining the employer-employee relationship
have been laid down, particularly with reference to
who pays the wages and who exercises control
and supervision over the workman.
6.2 Learned AGP Mr. Parmar submits that unless
and until the respondent discharges the onus of
proving his case, the learned Court could not have
held the termination to be illegal so as to grant the
relief of reinstatement. It is submitted that by the
learned AGP Mr. Parmar that by overlooking these
material aspects, the impugned order has been
passed, and therefore, the same deserves to be
interfered with and the petition deserves to be
allowed.
7 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Soneji, appearing
for the respondent in Special Civil Application Nos.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1504/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
1504, 1505, 1527 and 1530 of 2024, and learned
advocate Mr. Smit Vaghela, appearing for the
respondent in Special Civil Application Nos. 1531 and
1542 of 2024, submit that the documentary evidence
placed on record before the learned Reference Court
sufficiently established the violation of Section 33A of
the I.D. Act. The documents relied upon include the
identity card issued by the petitioner, the work
allotted under the instructions of the petitioner, the
show cause notice issued by the Deputy Executive
Engineer below Exhibit 23, and the explanation
tendered by one of the employees below Exhibit 24.
7.1 It is further submitted by learned advocate Mr.
Soneji that during the cross-examination of the
respondent employee, a specific question was put
with regard to the payment of wages, which was
answered to the effect that the wages were paid
by the petitioner and that attendance was also
recorded by the petitioner. In light of such
evidence, learned advocate Mr. Soneji submits
that the finding of the learned Reference Court is
just, proper, and in consonance with the material
on record, and therefore, no interference is
warranted in exercise of powers under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1504/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
8 Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties, it
emerges that the Demand Reference being
Reference (I.D.) No.19 of 2022 came to be filed
before the learned Industrial Tribunal on 16.03.2022
seeking the benefit of permanency. It further
emerges that upon filing of the said Reference, the
services of the respondent were orally terminated by
the petitioner, and therefore, a complaint under
Section 33A of the I.D. Act came to be instituted.
8.1 The written statement was filed by the present
petitioner disputing the existence of master and
servant relationship between the petitioner and
the respondent employee. In order to establish his
case, the respondent employee adduced evidence
in the nature of the identity card produced at
Exhibit 21, which was duly signed and stamped by
the petitioner authority. Further, presence records
were produced at Exhibit 22, wherein the
photographs as well as signatures of all employees
were marked. During the course of cross-
examination of the employees, a specific question
was put by the petitioner as to who was the
authority responsible for payment of wages and
marking of attendance, to which the concerned
employee answered that the Section Officer of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1504/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
petitioner was performing the said duties. From
the aforesaid evidence, it prima facie emerges that
the supervision and control was exercised by the
petitioner and that the wages were also paid by
the petitioner.
8.2 It is pertinent to note that upon the respondent
having discharged the initial burden, neither any
documentary nor oral evidence was adduced by
the petitioner to rebut the claim of the respondent
employee. Reliance placed on the decision in the
case of General Manager (OSD) (supra) also
makes it clear that, for establishing the
relationship of master and servant between the
employee and the principal employer, the relevant
factors to be taken into consideration are the
payment of wages and the element of supervision
and control exercised over the work of the
employee.
8.3 In the considered opinion of this Court, from the
evidence adduced before the learned Labour
Court, both these factors stand proved in favour of
the employees. Additionally, upon the respondents
having discharged the initial burden, as held by
the Apex Court in the case of Workmen of Nilgiri
Coop. MKT. Society Ltd. (supra), no other
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1504/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
evidence, either oral or documentary, was
adduced by the present petitioner to rebut the said
claim.
9 In that background, in the considered opinion of this
Court, no error can be said to have been committed
by the learned Labour Court in holding that the
termination was illegal and in violation of Section 33A
of the I.D. Act. It is true that no separate issue was
framed with regard to the adjudication of the master-
servant relationship, however, from the evidence
adduced by the respondent, it clearly emerges that
the respondent has succeeded in establishing the
existence of employer-employee relationship as well
as the violation of Section 33A of the I.D. Act.
10 Learned AGP Mr. Parmar submits that, in view of the
request made by the contractor, the identity cards
were issued during the period of lockdown. However,
even otherwise, the contract placed on record
indicates that it was executed in the year 2020,
whereas the appointment of the respondent
employee dates back to the year 1990.
11Admittedly, no contract was placed on record to
suggest that any agreement was executed between
the petitioner and the so-called contractor. In that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1504/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
background as well, no interference is warranted,
and the petitions are accordingly required to be
dismissed.
12 Resultantly, these petitions are dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
