ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia seeking quashing and setting aside the orders dated 26.02.2019, 30.03.2017, 27.06.2014 and the inquiry report dated 20.08.2016.

2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave appearing for the respondent-Company has submitted that appropriate remedy to challenge the aforesaid order is before the concerned Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not by way of a writ petition before this Court. He has submitted that the petitioner is a workman and the respondent-Company is an Industry, hence the writ petition is not maintainable.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Shakti Jadeja appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the impugned orders are passed without authority of law and against the statute, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition directly before this Court challenging the action of the respondents and the dispute is not an industrial dispute and hence, the writ petition is maintainable.

3.1 He has invited attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 30.03.2017 passed by the Executive Engineer forfeiting the amount of leave encashment and gratuity in view of the proved miscon