Gujarat High Court
Raviraj Nandlal Dulani vs Mafatlal Nathaji Gujjar on 2 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11774/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11774 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
RAVIRAJ NANDLAL DULANI
Versus
MAFATLAL NATHAJI GUJJAR & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 02/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by
the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad, dated
28.07.2023 in Reference (T) No. 675 of 2009, whereby
the learned Labour Court has partly allowed the
reference filed by the respondent, directing the
petitioner to pay 30% back wages along with other
consequential benefits.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the dispute
was raised by the respondent-workman before the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11774/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
learned Commissioner, stating that he had been working
for the petitioner as a Godown Keeper for the last 21
years and was receiving monthly wages of Rs.3,500. It is
further stated that his services were terminated on
10.08.2008 without following the due procedure
prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947(herein after referred to as the "ID Act"). Claiming
relief of reinstatement along with other consequential
benefits, the respondent raised an industrial dispute,
which came to be referred to the learned Labour Court
and was registered as Reference (T) No. 675 of 2009.
The present petitioner appeared before the learned
Labour Court and submitted that he was engaged in the
business of selling sofa materials, and that the
respondent was working as per his own convenience. It
was contended that the petitioner undertakes furniture
work only as per orders placed by clients, and the
respondent would report for work only when such orders
were available. It was further submitted that, as per the
muster roll, the respondent had not completed 240 days
of continuous service in any calendar year, and
therefore, he was not entitled to the reliefs claimed in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11774/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
the statement of claim. However, the learned Labour
Court, after considering the evidence on record in detail,
particularly the cross-examination of the petitioner's
witness, during which it was admitted that the
respondent had worked continuously for more than 8 to
9 years and had completed 250 days of service each
year, proceeded to grant the reliefs mentioned
hereinabove, which are now under challenge before this
Court..
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi for the
petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Modi submits that, as per the
muster roll forming part of the record before the learned
Labour Court, the respondent did not complete 240 days
of service in any year, and that for the last 3 to 4 years,
he had abandoned his services on his own. Therefore, it
is contended that the respondent is not entitled to the
reliefs claimed before the learned Labour Court. It is
further submitted by learned advocate Mr. Modi that, on
11.08.2008, after resuming duty for half a day, the
respondent abandoned his services, and hence, there
was no illegal termination as alleged. It is submitted by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11774/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
the learned advocate Mr. Modi that, despite the
evidence on record, the learned Labour Court has
discarded the same and partly allowed the reference in
favour of the respondent. Learned advocate Mr. Modi,
therefore, submits that the impugned award deserves to
be set aside, and the present petition is required to be
allowed.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocate and upon perusal of the reasons
assigned by the learned Labour Court, it is required to
be noted that, though the impugned award was passed
on 28.07.2023, the present petition came to be filed and
registered before the Registry of this Court on
20.08.2025. It emerges that as recovery application is
filed by the respondent being Recovery C2 No. 492 of
2023, the present petition is filed. Before the learned
Labour Court, it was the case of the respondent that he
had been serving with the petitioner as a Godown
Keeper for the past 21 years and was drawing a monthly
wage of Rs.3,500. It was further alleged that his services
were terminated on 10.08.2008 without following the
due procedure under the ID Act. To substantiate this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11774/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
claim, the witness of the petitioner was cross-examined
at Exh.27, wherein it was admitted that the respondent
had been working with the petitioner establishment for
the past 8 to 9 years and was serving from 9:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. It was also admitted that the respondent had
completed 250 days of service, and that no
communication regarding alleged abandonment of
service was ever issued to him. The petitioner sought to
rely on the evidence of a co-employee examined at
Exh.35; however, during cross-examination, this witness
admitted that the owner of the petitioner's
establishment is his cousin brother, and that he had filed
the affidavit in the form of chief examination at the
owner's instance. He further admitted that he had no
knowledge of the nature of the proceedings before the
learned Labour Court.
5.1. In the above background, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned Labour Court rightly
discarded the evidence at Exh.35 and relied on the
cross-examination of the petitioner's witness at Exh.27,
wherein clear admissions were made regarding the
respondent's continuous service for more than 250 days
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11774/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
in each year. As regards the muster roll produced before
this Court to demonstrate that the respondent had not
completed 240 days of service, it would have no bearing
in light of the specific admissions made in the cross-
examination. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
learned Labour Court was justified in partly allowing the
reference in favour of the respondent. It is also required
to be noted that, though the learned Labour Court
observed in paragraph 11.8 of the award that the
respondent is entitled to the relief of reinstatement, the
said relief was inadvertently omitted in the operative
part of the award. However, considering the fact that
the petitioner has approached this Court under the
pretext that reinstatement was granted, and in view of
the clear observations in the body of the award, this
Court finds no error in the grant of reinstatement along
with 30% back wages. In view of the above discussion,
this petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
