[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Beradiya Ashokbhai Chhaganbhai on 27 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/887/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 887 of 2026
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BERADIYA ASHOKBHAI CHHAGANBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS AGNEYA MANKAD AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JEET Y RAJYAGURU(8039) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 27/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has impugned the
award dated 08.08.2025 passed in the Reference (T) Case No.58 of
2024 by the learned Labour Court, Junagadh, whereby the
respondent workman has been granted reinstatement with
continuity in service without any back-wages.
2. The learned AGP Ms. Agneya Mankad appearing for the
petitioner submits that the learned Labour Court has not properly
appreciated the evidence in support of the claim of the respondent
workman. The learned AGP submits that the entire claim of the
respondent workman is based on assumption. She further submits
that there was no evidence on record to prove the case of the
respondent workman before the learned Labour Court. She submits
that initially, the respondent workman had worked as daily wager
labourer and thereafter, he was appointed through the outsourcing
agency. She submits that the learned Labour Court has not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/887/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
considered the fact that the respondent workman was being paid his
salary through the outsourcing agency. She submits that since the
respondent workman was working through the outsourcing agency,
there was no question of issuing any termination notice or following
the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. She submits that
the award has been passed ex-parte against the petitioner. She
submits that the petitioner was never informed about the pendency
of the reference proceedings before the learned Labour Court. She,
therefore, submits that the petitioner could not place any cogent
evidence on record to rebut the claim of the respondent workman.
She, therefore, submits that the Special Civil Application be allowed
and the impugned award be quashed and set aside.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. Jeet Rajyaguru appearing
for the respondent workman submits that the respondent workman
was working with the petitioner from 01.02.2010 till 16.02.2024
and he has worked continuously for the said period. He submits that
the service of the respondent workman came to be orally
terminated without following any due process of law. Aggrieved, the
respondent workman raised a dispute with the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, who, by communication dated 06.12.2024, made a
reference to the learned Labour Court being Reference (T) No.58 of
2024. The learned counsel further submits that despite service of
notice, the petitioner did not appear in the reference proceedings.
He submits that the respondent workman produced oral as well as
documentary evidence in the nature of copy of certificate issued by
the petitioner as well as bank statement, which show that the
respondent workman has worked with the petitioner continuously
for a period of 14 years. He further submits that the learned Labour
Court has relied upon such evidence to partly allow the reference in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/887/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
favour of the respondent workman. He submits that even in the
present Writ Petition, the petitioner has not produced any evidence
on record to controvert the findings recorded by the learned Labour
Court. He, therefore, submits that the Special Civil Application be
dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties, considered the
submissions and perused the documents on record.
5. The fact in the present case reveals that the respondent
workman was working as Safar Kamdar with the petitioner
Organization from 01.02.2010 and was working as daily wager full
time employee. The service of the respondent workman came to be
orally terminated on 16.02.2024. The respondent workman has not
been given any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation
before termination of his service. The respondent workman had
made a representation to take him back, which was not replied to
by the petitioner. Thereafter, on 24.07.2024, the respondent
workman issued the demand notice to the petitioner, which came to
be duly served upon the petitioner. Still, the petitioner did not take
any action on such demand notice. Aggrieved, the petitioner raised
an industrial dispute and initiated the reference proceedings before
the learned Labour Court.
6. In the reference proceedings before the learned Labour Court,
the respondent workman adduced oral evidence and by way of
documentary evidence, has produced a certificate issued by the
petitioner, which reveal that the respondent workman was working
with the petitioner. Further, the respondent workman has also
placed on record his bank statement for the period from 01.02.2010
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/887/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
till 03.02.2025, which clearly shows that he was working with the
petitioner for the period from 01.02.2010 till 16.02.2024. The said
documentary evidence has been considered by the learned Labour
Court to hold that the respondent workman was an employee of the
petitioner and has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding
years with the petitioner. Looking to the length of service of more
than 14 years put in by the respondent workman, the learned
Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity in service,
but without any back-wages.
7. No specific averments have been raised in the Writ Petition to
controvert the findings as arrived at by the learned Labour Court.
The petitioner has only annexed the copy of the impugned award
and the claim statement in support of the averments in the Writ
Petition. No other documents are placed on record to show that the
findings rendered by the learned Labour Court are bad in law. The
reference proceedings proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner.
The petitioner has also not preferred any Misc. Application under
Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
findings rendered in the impugned award are based on the evidence
brought on record and by giving cogent reasons. The impugned
award is just and proper. The Special Civil Application is devoid of
merits and is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
cmk
