[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat Through Range Forest ... vs Thakor Rajuji Vanaji on 17 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1432/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1432 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1432 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH RANGE FOREST OFFICER
Versus
THAKOR RAJUJI VANAJI
================================================================
Appearance:
MS SWEETY SAMARA AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PH PATHAK(665) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS REENA M KAMANI(6007) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SHREE P PATHAK(13126) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 17/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Shree P. Pathak,
learned advocate waives service of rule for the respondent.
2. In the present Special Civil Application, the petitioner is
praying to quash and set aside the order dated 19.09.2025
passed in Reference (LCM) No.46 of 2015 by the learned Labour
Court, Mahesana.
3. The brief facts in the present case is that the respondent
workman was working as a Daily Wager with the petitioner
establishment since the year 1997 till his service came to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1432/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
orally terminated on 30.07.2012. That the respondent workman
thereafter raised an industrial dispute which came to be referred
to the learned Labour Court by communication dated
09.02.2015 of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mahesana.
Both the parties led evidence in support of their case. By the
impugned award dated 19.09.2025, the learned Labour Court
has allowed the reference holding that the oral termination of the
respondent workman on 30.07.2012 was illegal and has directed
reinstatement in service with 20% back wages.
4. Ms. Sweety Samara, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Labour
Court did not appreciate the evidence produced by the petitioner
before it. It is submitted that the witness of the petitioner has
clearly stated that the respondent workman had not worked for
240 days in any year. That the respondent workman was
employed as a Daily Wager in Dharoi Central Nursery. She
submits that the respondent workman has not produced any
evidence on record to show that he was in service for such a long
period of time. She submits that the respondent workman was
being called for work as and when required. She submits that
the learned Labour Court erred in passing the impugned award
since the respondent workman was engaged in 1997 and has not
completed 240 days in any given calender year. She submits that
the impugned award be quashed and set aside.
5. Per contra, Ms. Shree P. Pathak, learned advocate for the
respondent workman submits that the respondent workman was
working as a Daily Wager and had put in long years of service.
She submits that the petitioners were called upon to produce
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1432/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
cogent evidence on record. She submits that the petitioners have
also examined their witness who has not produced any record in
support of his oral evidence. She submits that the learned
Labour Court has rightly rejected the said evidence and has held
that the respondent workman had worked for 240 days and that
he was entitled for reinstatement with continuity in service. The
learned counsel submits that the impugned award is just and
proper and the present Special Civil Application be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties, perused the
documents and considered the submissions.
7. In the present case, it has come on record that the
respondent workman has worked with the petitioner
establishment for a period of 16 years in the Nursery as a Daily
Wager on daily wage of Rs.130/-, which was being paid as
monthly wages. It has further come on record that the services of
the respondent workman came to be orally terminated on
30.07.2012. The learned Labour Court has further observed that
the petitioner has led oral evidence and examined its witness.
The said witness has categorically stated that the respondent
workman had joined service in the year 1997 and he had been
relieved in December-2014. It is further stated in the deposition
that the respondent workman was being granted benefits as per
the seniority list. That the learned Labour Court had also passed
an order under Exh.15 to produce the pay-slip and attendance
sheet in respect of the respondent workman. However, the
petitioners have not produced the same. The respondent
workman in his oral evidence has clearly stated that he has
worked for 240 days in every calender year and the same has not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1432/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
been controverted by the petitioner by way of any cogent
evidence either documentary or oral in nature. The muster roll
has also not been produced on record.
8. In the overall facts and circumstances of the present case
and after assessing the evidence on record, the learned Labour
Court has come to the conclusion that there was violation of the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the oral
termination of the respondent workman was illegal. The findings
as recorded by the learned Labour Court could not be
controverted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader by
way of any documentary evidence on record. The reasoning given
by the learned Labour Court is based on cogent evidence. No
interference is called for in the impugned award. The impugned
award is just and proper. The present Special Civil Application is
devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is
directed to comply with the impugned award within a period of 8
weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
In view of the above order in main writ petition, the Civil
Application No.1 of 2026 does not survive and is accordingly
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN
