Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M.K.THAKKER
Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Halvad – Appellant
Versus
Manojbhai Dahyabhai Sonagra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of employment and dismissal. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on legality of dismissal. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's evaluation of dismissal legality. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 15 , 17) |
| 4. legal standards for loss of confidence. (Para 16) |
| 5. final decision to dismiss the petition. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT :
M. K. THAKKER, J.
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms.Purani waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1.
2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 24.04.2025 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Morbi in Reference (LCR) No.12 of 2020, whereby the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The learned Labour Court has also directed payment of penal interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the award till actual realization.
3. Gist of the Case:
3.1. The respondent was initially appointed on a seasonal basis in the APMC on 06.10.1998. On 02.10.2002, the respondent was issued an authority letter on behalf of the APMC, and subsequently, on 18.03.2003, the APMC issued a performance certificate
Termination based on loss of confidence requires substantial evidence and a fair inquiry process; failure to provide either renders the dismissal unlawful.
Loss of confidence by the employer justifies termination without inquiry; however, failure to comply with natural justice principles warrants a compensatory award.
The Labour Court cannot interfere with the punishment order if the departmental inquiry is fair and proper.
The burden of proof for misconduct lies with the employer, and failure to substantiate claims of loss of confidence invalidates the denial of reinstatement.
An employee's dismissal is invalid if not approved under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, entitling them to reinstatement and benefits.
An employee's dismissal is invalid without evidence of loss of confidence, and reinstatement is the norm unless proven otherwise.
The loss of confidence of the employer in the employee is the primary factor in cases of theft, and the quantum of theft is not important.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
