Gujarat High Court
Ganga R. K. Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Dharmendra Manilal Ramavat on 8 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12348/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12348 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
GANGA R. K. INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.
Versus
DHARMENDRA MANILAL RAMAVAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
JEET Y RAJYAGURU(8039) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ J SHAH(3110) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 08/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the award passed by
the learned Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference LCR
No.76 of 2017 dated 28.04.2025 whereby learned
Labour Court has directed to the present petitioner to
reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12348/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
consequential reliefs.
3. It is the case of the present petitioner before this Court
that the petitioner and respondent no.2 to 4 are distinct
legal entities and registered under different registration
number. Respondent no.2 to 4 has seized from operation
long back and at present are not doing any business
activity. The respondent employee has raised the dispute
before Industrial forum seeking reinstatement and
declaration of illegal termination. It was referred to the
learned Labour Court for adjudication and same was
numbered as reference LCR No.76 of 2017 wherein, the
present petitioner appeared and submitted that the
employee was engaged for temporary work and from
2001 to 2015 he worked as a Clerk with different firms.
It is contended that the employee had tendered his
resignation and without filing any application for
withdrawal the said resignation and after acceptance of
the same, dispute was raised before the learned
Reference Court. Therefore, dispute sought to be
dismissed by the present petitioner. Learned reference
court, considering the evidence adduced on record, has
partly allowed the reference in favour of the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12348/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
by granting relief mentioned hereinabove, which is
subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru for the
petitioner.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru submits that
learned Labour Court has committed error discarding
the material piece of evidence i.e. resignation which is
produced along with D.E List of the present petitioner.
Learned advocate Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru submits that said
resignation was never denied neither rebutted by the
present respondent employee however, only on the
ground that no contention with regard to the resignation
was taken in written statement, learned court has
overlooked the resignation and awarded relief in favour
of the respondent. Learned advocate Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru
submits that without establishing the continuity of
service in light of section 25B of the I.D.Act learned
Court has committed error in relying on the certificate
issued by the present petitioner stating that respondent
has worked from 20.10.2013 to 30.11.2015 and believed
the case of the respondent with regard to continuity of
service. Learned advocate Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru submits
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12348/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
that in absence of any production application or any
documentary evidence suggesting continuous work of
the present petitioner, learned court has committed
error in awarding the reference in favour of the
respondent and same is required to be set aside and this
petition is required to be allowed.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned
advocate for the petitioner Mr.Rajyaguru and on
referring the reasons by the learned reference court, it
emerges that on raising the dispute with regard to
illegal termination from 11.11.2015 the petitioner has
appeared and has filed the common written statement
on behalf of all four first parties i.e. petitioner as well as
respondent no.2 and 4. It is undisputed fact that all four
are sister concerns and run by the members of the same
family. To establish the claim of illegal termination the
respondent alongwith statement of claim has filed
certificate issued by different company namely Steel
Forged, Asia Diesel Exports, Kotecha Steel Forged Pvt.
Ltd. And Ganga R.K.Industries Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner
who is fourth company namely Ganga R.K.Industries Pvt.
Ltd. has certified that respondent has worked with him
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12348/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
from 20.10.2013 to 30.11.2015. This certificate has
neither claimed to have been forged nor has been
rebutted during the course of evidence of the petitioner.
The written statement which is filed by the present
petitioner contended only the abandonment of service of
the respondent, however, during the cross-examination
it is admitted that for so called abandonment neither any
notice was issued nor any inquiry was initiated. The
cross-examination of the respondent was concluded on
24.06.2024 and thereafter, chief-examination of witness
of the present petitioner was filed on 22.07.2024 stating
that respondent has resigned from the service on
23.10.2015 and resignation was placed on record. It is
undisputed fact that said resignation was not put to the
respondent during the cross-examination therefore,
respondent was not having any opportunity to deal with
the said resignation and in absence of the same in the
considered opinion of this Court the resignation cannot
said to have been proved. Apart from this if the case of
the petitioner was that respondent has resigned from
the service then at first opportunity he could have
contended the same aspect and produce the resignation
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12348/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
along with his written statement. In absence of the
same, this Court is of the view that resignation is
nothing but an afterthought defence which was raised to
absolve from the liability of payment of retrenchment
compensation.
6.1. This Court has referred the decision rendered by the
Apex Court in the case of Ahmedabd New Textile
Mills Vs Rajubhai Dalchandbhai reported in and in
the case of Morbi Nagar palika Vs Bhavanbhai
Khodabhai Patel & Anr reported in (2016) 16 SCC
491 wherein, it is held that mere production of
documents does not mean the admission of documents in
evidence. In order to admit the document in evidence,
the document must be proved as per the provisions of
Evidence Act or it must be admitted by the other side in
evidence. Mere production of the document will not
make the admission of the document in evidence.
6.2. As discussed above, the petitioner fails to rebut the
certificate which was produced by the respondent
alongwith his statement of claim and no error has been
committed by the learned Court in believing the case of
the continuity of service and granting the relief in favour
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12348/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
of the respondent. Except the resignation no contrary
evidence were placed on record to show that respondent
is not entitled for relief which is claimed and therefore,
in absence of the same no error has been committed by
the learned Court in relief of reinstatement with
continuity of service with 50% back wages. The present
petition devoid of merits requires to be dismissed.
7. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
ARCHANA S. PILLAI
