Gujarat High Court
Prakshesh Stevanbhai Rajvadi vs Manager, Kohler India Corpo. Pvt. Ltd on 17 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2934 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PRAKSHESH STEVANBHAI RAJVADI
Versus
MANAGER, KOHLER INDIA CORPO. PVT. LTD.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DG SHUKLA(1998) assisted by MS.MESWA BHATT for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 17/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate
Mr.D.G.Shukla with learned advocate Ms.Meswa Bhatt
waive service of Rule on behalf of respondent.
2. The present petition is filed challenging the award
passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharuch in
Reference LCB No.218 of 2016 dated 11.12.2018,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
whereby learned Court has rejected the claim of the
petitioner for reinstatement on the ground that the
petitioner does not fall under the definition of section
2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as he
fails to establish that the resignation was forceful in
nature.
3. As per the claim of the petitioner raised before the
learned labour court he was appointed as a Diploma
Engineer Trainee with the respondent establishment
with effect from 01.06.2012. He received the increment
on 01.06.2013 and he was promoted on the post of
Supervisor on 01.06.2014. On 06.10.2015 he was forced
to resign from the service by one Mr.Kiran Kulkarni-
Manager HOD of the Maintenance Department and
though there was a provision of two month's notice, he
was not allowed to work from the next day. He withdrew
his resignation on 02.12.2015 by sending the
communication, however, the same was not replied,
therefore, again on 14.12.2015 he sent a reminder which
was replied by the respondent Management by
intimating to the petitioner that his resignation has
already been accepted therefore, he cannot be taken
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
back in the service. He claimed that without paying the
retrenchment compensation and one month notice pay,
his services were terminated in violation of section 25(f)
of the I.D.Act by the respondent Management, therefore,
claiming the reinstatement with full back wages, the
reference came to be filed. The respondent Management
appeared before the learned Reference Court and
submitted that the petitioner, being a Supervisor, was
not punctual in his service and was not following the
instructions of his senior Officers. He used to quarrel
with the co-employee and has issued threats to face the
dire consequences. He was found negligent in
discharging his duties and on 14.12.2014, along with his
other subordinate staffs he was found to be sleeping
during duty hours and for that the notice was issued on
10.01.2015. On tendering apology in writing accepting
his misconduct, the Management has taken a lenient
view. Thereafter, from 30.05.2015 to 05.10.2015 he
remained absent without taking prior permission and on
06.10.2015 on resuming the duty he tendered his
resignation on the ground that his uncle passed away
and he has responsibility of his family, therefore, he
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
cannot continue in the service and thereafter, he left the
premises. After two months of the date of resignation on
02.12.2015 he withdrew his resignation and on receiving
the second reminder, the respondent replied that on
06.10.2015 the resignation which was tendered was
already accepted and therefore, he cannot be reinstated.
Learned Court, on considering the evidence adduced by
both the parties, has passed judgment and award
dismissing the reference filed by the present petitioner
which is impugned before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Yogen Pandya with learned
advocate Mr.Lamba for the petitioner and learned
advocate Mr.Shukla with Ms.Meswa Bhatt.
4.1. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Lamba for
the petitioner that learned Court has committed error in
not appreciating the evidence to the effect that the
Superior of the petitioner has forced him to resign by
threatening him to cause harassment and as the
petitioner does not have any other option except to sign
the resignation, the same was considered as a voluntary
resignation by the learned Labour Court. It is submitted
by the learned advocate Mr.Lamba that without framing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
any issues with regard to the petitioner being a
workman or not, the learned Court has given its finding
that the petitioner being a Supervisor does not fall under
the category of 'workman'. Learned advocate Mr.Lamba
submits that petitioner worked in the Maintenance
Department and as per the evidence of the witness of
the respondent he used to do the work of repairing of
the machine which does not fall under managerial or
supervisory cadre. Learned advocate Mr.Lamba submits
that he was forced by the Manager HOD to sign in the
typed resignation and the petitioner has signed under
force and coercion. The petitioner before acceptance of
the resignation, which was tendered has already
withdrawn the same, however, learned Court without
considering the said material evidence has dismissed the
reference filed by the present petitioner. Learned
advocate Mr.Lamba submits that before the acceptance
of the resignation and before settling the dues, the
petitioner has the right to withdraw the resignation,
however, due to the conspiracy hatched by the
Management to remove the petitioner from the service,
though notice pay or notice has not been given, neither
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
any acceptance letter was communicated, petitioner was
informed to have been resigned from the service from
06.10.2015.
4.2. Learned advocate Mr.Lamba relies on the decision
rendered by the Apex Court in the case of J.K. Cotton
Spinning and And Weaving Mills Co.vs State Of
U.P. And Ors reported in (1990) 4 SCC 27, Secy.,
Technical Education, U.P. & Ors vs Lalit Mohan
Upadhyay reported in (2007) 4 SCC 492 and AIR
India Express Ltd and Ors. Vs Captain Gurdarshan
Kaur Sandhu reported in (2019) 7 SCC 129 has
submitted that before resignation becomes effective and
accepted by the competent authority discontinuation of
service would amount to termination and therefore the
petitioner is entitled to the protection under section 25f
of the ID Act. Learned advocate Mr.Lamba has relied on
the decision rendered by the High Court of Karnataka in
the case of Management of Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation Vs M.B.Ramakrishna
reported in 2000 LawSuit(Kar) 539 and submitted
that once the resignation is accepted by the employer
there will be cessation of the contract of employment
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
and the master and servant relationship comes to an
end. To recognize the right of withdrawal of the
resignation or the right of withdrawal of the acceptance
of resignation would amount to coming into light the
already extinguished contract. In view of the above,
learned advocate Mr.Lamba has requested to allow the
petition by setting aside the impugned award.
4.3. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Shukla assisted by
learned advocate Ms.Meswa Bhatt submitted that
petitioner was getting revised salary of Rs.17,998/- with
effect from 01.06.2013 and on being promoted as
supervisor in Maintenance Department he was paid
Rs.20,797/- per month. The petitioner being appointed in
front line leader cadre has to ensure the over all smooth
and effective function of department and would be
responsible for successful and timely completion of work
assigned to him. The hand written resignation was
tendered mentioning the personal reasons for not
continuing this job on 06.10.2015 and after two months
from the said period the petitioner has addressed the
communication on 02.12.2015 informing to take back
the resignation. It is submitted by the learned advocate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
that though it is contended that typed resignation was
signed, however, the resignation was tendered in his
own hand writing therefore, one cannot say that it was
forceful resignation. It is submitted by learned advocate
Mr.Shukla that at the time of resigning from the service
he was serving in the cadre of supervisor and getting the
wages more than ceiling limit mentioned in section 2(s)
of the ID Act. Therefore, learned court is justified in
holding that petitioner cannot be said to be workman
within the meaning of section 2(s) of the ID Act and it
was held that learned court does not have jurisdiction to
entertain the reference. It is submitted by learned
advocate Mr.Shukla that with regard to the legal dues
no contention is raised in any of the communication
addressed to the respondent Management by the
petitioner however, the claim was raised with regard to
the retrenchment compensation in the statement of
claim and therefore also learned Court was justified in
holding that resignation which was tendered was not
forceful resignation and on being accepted the petitioner
does not has right to continue with the service.
4.4. Learned advocate Mr.Shukla relies on the decision
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Linen Kumar
Ray; Managemenet, M/s Express Publication
(Madurai) Ltd Vs M/s Express Publications
(Madurai) Ltd; Lenin Kumar Ray reported in AIR
2024 SC 5409 and submitted that onus is on the
petitioner to establish the claim of workman and in
absence of the same no relief can be granted in favour of
the petitioner. By submitting the same learned advocate
Mr.Shukla prays to the Court that this petition be
dismissed and the impugned order be confirmed.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocate for the respective parties and on
referring the reasons assigned by the learned labour
court, the two main issues arising for consideration is
that whether the petitioner falls under the definition of
section 2(s) of the ID Act and whether the resignation
which was offered was forceful resignation and in
absence of any formal acceptance, withdrawal of the
resignation can be permitted or not. To decide the first
issue, this Court has referred the evidence, more
particularly, the appointment order of the petitioner
dated 01.06.2012 wherein, it is stated that petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
was employed as Diploma Engineer Trainee with effect
from 01.06.2012 as well as, as per the order dated
01.06.2014, where he was promoted as a Supervisor and
he was paid the wages of Rs.20,797/-. Admittedly in the
statement of claim, no averment with regard to the
workman was made by the petitioner, neither in the
written statement it is denied that the petitioner was not
a workman. In that background, if one would examine
the nature of work which reveals from the oral evidence
of the witnesses, then as per the evidence of the
respondent management who was examined below
Exh.27, this witness admitted that work of the workman
was to repair electric machine. He also admitted that he
does not know whether the workman had power to grant
leave to anyone or not. It is admitted by the witness that
the workman had no authority to give notice to anyone,
neither had any powers to initiate the departmental
actions against any subordinate employees. The learned
Court without framing issue with regard to the
workman, has concluded the reference by assigning the
reasons that as per the record the petitioner was not a
workman but was a Supervisor and he enjoyed the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
powers of supervision and was having authority over his
subordinate technician. This Court fails to find any
evidence which reveals the same aspect and basis for
arriving to the conclusion that the petitioner was having
the powers of supervisory nature.
5.1. Merely because the nomenclature of the petitioner's
post was Supervisor and was receiving the wages of
more than Rs.10,000/- i.e the ceiling limit would not
automatically bring the status of the person as a
Supervisor. To arrive at the findings whether the person
is a workman or not even if he is designated as a
Supervisor, the nature of the work performed is a
relevant factor. If the nature of work suggests that
petitioner is mainly doing the clerical work and
discharging some duties of Supervisor occasionally, then
that does not mean that the person is a Supervisor so as
to take him away from the ambit of the workman defined
under section 2(s) of the I.D.Act. At this stage, the
reference of the definition of the workman provided
under section 2(s) is required to be made, which is
reproduced herein below:-
"2(s)[ "workman" means any person (including an apprentice)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled,
technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or
reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied,
and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation
to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been
dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a
consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or
retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any
such person- [ Substituted by Act 46 of 1982, Section 2, for Cl. (s)
(w.e.f. 21.8.1984).]
(i)who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the
Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957);
or
(ii)who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other
employee of a prison, or
(iii)who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative
capacity, or
(iv)who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages
exceeding [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either
by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of
the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial
nature.]"
6. By the general terms of the opening part of the above
definition, workman means "any person employed in any
industry to do supervisory or clerical work for higher or
reward" This shows that because the work is
supervisory, therefore, it does not necessarily follow that
an employee is not a workman. Therefore, even if
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
workman doing a supervisory work still remains to be a
workman within the definition of the term. The test
would only be the duties which was primary, basic and
dominant in nature for which the person whose status
under the inquiry was employed. In absence of any issue
and in absence of any dispute raised with regard to the
workman, the learned court has committed error in
holding that the petitioner does not fall under the ambit
of section 2(s) of the ID Act.
6.1. The next question for consideration before this Court
is whether the resignation is forceful and in absence of
formal acceptance, at any time withdrawal of the said
resignation can be permitted. So far as the contention of
the forceful resignation is concerned, this Court has
referred the resignation which is placed on record by
the learned advocate for the petitioner and found that
the resignation dated 06.10.2015 is in the handwriting
of the petitioner himself. It is alleged by the petitioner
that the petitioner was made to sign typed resignation
forcebly by Mr.Kiran Kulkarni- Manager, HOD of the
Maintenance Department. This submission is falsified
from the resignation itself, as the same is found to be in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
handwriting of the petitioner and to establish that
Mr.Kulkarni has forced the petitioner to sign, the said
Mr.Kulkarni was not examined by the petitioner. It is
settled position of law that the burden lies on the
workman to prove that the resignation is taken forcefully
and to discharge that burden, evidence has to be proved
by way of adducing either in oral or documentary
evidence. In that background, this Court is of the view
that learned Court has not committed any error in
holding that resignation was given voluntarily and the
petitioner himself has willingly signed the same.
6.2. With regard to the question that unless and until the
formal acceptance of the resignation is given, it can be
withdrawn at any time this Court has referred the
decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of
Rajasthan State Electricity Board and Ors Versus
Brij Mohan Parihar reported in (2000) 9 SCC 269.
The case before the Apex Court was that the respondent
who was an employee of the Electricity Board had
submitted his resignation on 10.10.1983 mentioning the
effective dated from 26.11.1983 and the learned Single
Judge as well as the Division Bench has recorded the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
finding that as respondent offered himself for duty on
22.08.1987 and as the formal acceptance of the
resignation have not been issued, the respondent was
granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of
service. The Apex Court has held that when the
resignation itself suggests the effective date and the
employee absented from the duty from the said date, the
conduct itself indicates that he treated himself to have
resigned from the post which he was holding. Therefore,
the order passed by the learned Single Judge and
Division Bench was set aside. The case on hand
Admittedly there is no rules framed by the
management, fixing any timeline for acceptance of the
resignation. On referring the resignation, it does not
suggest any future date for acceptance of the same.
Therefore, resignation shall have to be held to be a
unilateral act requiring no acceptance and no further
action is required to be taken for the resignation to be
made effective. The resignation will be deemed to have
taken effect from the date when the resignation was
tendered and as statute does not provide any further
action for acceptance of the resignation, in the opinion
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
of this Court, resignation would come into force
immediately when it was tendered.
7. The present petitioner, who after tendering the
resignation absented from the duty for around 60 days is
sufficed to hold that intention of the petitioner was to
get relieve from the duty with immediate effect. As an
after thought, the communication was addressed on
02.12.2015 informing that he wants to withdraw the
resignation. As no response was given by the
Management therefore, again the communication was
addressed on 14.12.2015 which was replied by the
respondent-Management on 15.12.2015 stating that as
"you have tendered the resignation on his own without
any pressure or coercion, company has accepted your
resignation and has relieved you from the duty". After
this communication, the petitioner has further
communication to the respondent-Management on
18.12.2015 with new story of forceful resignation. In the
opinion of this Court when the contention of the forceful
resignation has not been taken in the communication
dated 02.12.2015 as well as in the communication dated
14.12.2015 and only after reply of the management that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
it was given without any pressure or coercion, to get
absolved from the resignation which was given willingly,
the fabricated and concocted story was brought up by
the petitioner.
8. This Court has referred the decision relied by the
learned advocate Mr.Lamba for the petitioner which
were on different facts wherein, the resignation was
withdrawn within the notice period which was not the
fact herein and in that background, this Court is of the
view that the said decisions would not come to the
rescue of the present petitioner. As the learned court
has evaluated the evidence placed by both the parties
and has given cogent and sufficient reasons to hold that
resignation was tendered willingly, this Court does not
deem it fit to interfere with the impugned award. Hence,
this petition being devoid of merits deserves to be
dismissed.
9. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
ARCHANA S. PILLAI
