[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Additional Chief Conservator Of ... vs Dashrathji Kanaji Thakor on 24 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17444/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17444 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
================================================================
ADDITIONAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, TRAINING
DEPARTMENT
Versus
DASHRATHJI KANAJI THAKOR & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS AGNEYA MANKAD AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 24/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. U.T.Mishra, learned
advocate waives service of rule for the respondent No.1
workman.
2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging
the award dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned Labour
Court, Ahmedabad in Reference-T (LCA) No.405 of 2016.
3. Ms. Agneya Mankad, learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the G.R.
dated 15.09.2014, it was directed that the Daily Wagers for
seasonal work were to be engaged only through outsourcing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17444/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
agency and therefore, the services of the respondent workman
came to be terminated by the petitioner after following due
procedure of law, by giving notice and upon payment of
retrenchment compensation. She submits that the retrenchment
was in accordance with law and the same has not been properly
appreciated by the learned Labour Court. She further submits
that it has not been properly appreciated by the learned Labour
Court that the respondent workman had worked for 7 years only
and in the span of 7 years, he has worked for 240 days and more
for a period of 2 years. She submits that since the respondent
workman had not completed 5 years consecutively for 240 days
and more, he was not entitled for relief of reinstatement with
continuity of service as granted by the learned Labour Court.
She submits that the respondent workman has not produced on
record any documentary evidence to prove that he has worked
for 240 days in a calender year for 5 years consecutively. She
submits that the impugned award has been passed only on the
basis of the presumptions and therefore, cannot be sustained in
law. She submits that the evidence brought on record by the
petitioner shows that the respondent workman was not entitled
for any of the reliefs as sought for before the learned Labour
Court. She, therefore, submits that the impugned award be
quashed and set aside.
4. Per contra, Mr. U.T.Mishra, learned advocate for the
respondent workman submits that the respondent workman was
appointed as a Daily Wager by the petitioner on 01.02.2007 and
has been continuously working on the establishment of the
petitioner till his illegal termination on 08.05.2015. He submits
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17444/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
that the respondent workman had filed a writ petition being
Special Civil Application No.7160 of 2014 seeking a direction to
extend the benefits of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 to the respondent
workman. By judgment dated 08.05.2014, the Coordinate Bench
of this Court was pleased to allow the said writ petition directing
the petitioner to examine the case of the respondent workman
individually and if found eligible, then to extend the benefits of
the G.R. dated 17.10.1988, as per the directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. He submits that thereafter the respondent
workman came to be retrenched from his service illegally. He
further submits that despite working continuously for 240 days
and more from 01.02.2007 till 08.05.2015, the services of the
petitioner were shown to be retrenched in the records. The
learned Labour Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on
record and come to the conclusion that there is breach of
Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
["ID Act" for short]. He submits that the evidence brought on
record has been properly appreciated by the learned Labour
Court. Thus, the impugned award be upheld and the writ
petition be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties, perused the
documents and considered the submissions.
6. It is not in dispute that the respondent workman has been
appointed as a Daily Wager on 01.02.2007 and has worked
continuously on the establishment of the petitioner till his
alleged retrenchment on 25.12.2014. For all the said years, it
has brought on record by way of cogent evidence that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17444/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
respondent workman has worked for 240 days and more during
the said period of services. In fact, in the cross-examination of
the witness of the petitioner in the learned Labour Court, the
said witness i.e. the Range Forest Officer has clearly stated that
the respondent workman has continuously worked from
01.02.2007 to 08.05.2015 and has further admitted that the
service of the respondent workman was orally terminated on
08.05.2015. The learned Labour Court while appreciating the
evidence on record has also come to the conclusion that though
it is the case of the petitioner that the service of the respondent
workman came to be retrenched from 25.12.2014 by paying
retrenchment compensation, however, except credit of
retrenchment compensation, no evidence has been brought on
record to show that any due procedure in law was followed to
retrench the respondent workman. Further, even after payment
of retrenchment compensation, the respondent workman's
services have been continued till 08.05.2015. Further, the
retrenchment notice produced on record has not been cogently
proved to have been served on the respondent workman before
the payment of such retrenchment compensation by any mode of
service. The learned Labour Court has disbelieved such notice of
retrenchment in view of the same. Further, looking to the
evidence brought on record and in the overall circumstances of
the present case, it is duly proved that the respondent workman
was working on the establishment of the petitioner as a Daily
Wager from 01.02.2007 till 08.05.2015 continuously without any
break for 240 days and more in each calender year. The
conclusion drawn by the learned Labour Court that the
provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the ID Act have been
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17444/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
violated in the present case cannot also be faulted since it is
admitted by the witness of the petitioner that no seniority list is
maintained by the establishment at District or State level in
respect of Daily Wagers. The findings as recorded by the learned
Labour Court are based on evidence on record and cogent
reasons have been assigned. The impugned award is just and
proper.
The present Special Civil Application is devoid of merits
and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to
costs.
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN
