Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8311
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M. K. THAKKER, J
RAVIRAJ NANDLAL DULANI – Appellant
Versus
MAFATLAL NATHAJI GUJJAR – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11774 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR.HIREN M MODI(3732)
For the Respondents:
The court upheld the Labour Court's ruling on unlawful termination and entitlement to back wages based on established continuous service.
Headnote:(A) Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Termination of services and back wages - Petition challenging an award of the Labour Court which directed the petitioner to pay back wages to the employee - The court upheld the Labour Court’s finding that the employee worked continuously for more than 250 days a year, dismissing the petitioner's claim of abandonment of service. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Evidence - Cross-examination admissions - The court highlighted that the evidence put forth by the petitioner was deemed unreliable in light of admissions made during cross-examination. (Paras 5-5.1)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested a Labour Court award directing him to pay 30% back wages to the respondent employee after determining that the employee had been unlawfully terminated without due process under the ID Act.
Findings of Court:
The Labour Court rightly concluded that the respondent had established continuous employment exceeding required thresholds, reinforcing the law's protective nature over workers.
Issues: The legality of termination and the entitlement to back wages were central issues, alongside the question of service abandonment.
Ratio Decidendi: The judicial examination revealed that the employee’s substantial admissions negated the claim of service abandonment, affirming the Labour Court's award as just and warranted.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to labour court award (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner’s claims of termination illegal (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments regarding service and claims (Para 4) |
| 4. evidence supporting continuous service (Para 5) |
| 5. outcome of dismissal of petition (Para 6) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad, dated 28.07.2023 in Reference (T) No. 675 of 2009, whereby the learned Labour Court has partly allowed the reference filed by the respondent, directing the petitioner to pay 30% back wages along with other consequential benefits.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the dispute was raised by the respondent–workman before the learned Commissioner, stating that he had been working for the petitioner as a Godown Keeper for the last 21 years and was receiving monthly wages of Rs.3,500. It is further stated that his services were terminated on 10.08.2008 without following the due procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947(herein after referred to as the “ID Act”). Claiming relief of reinstatement along with other consequential benefits, the respondent raised an industrial dispute, which came to be referred to the learned Labour Court and was registered as Reference (T) No. 675 of 2009. The present petitioner appeared before the learned Labour Court and submitted that he was engaged in the business of selling sofa materials, and that the respondent was working as per his own convenience. It was contended that the petitioner undertakes furniture work only as per orders placed by clients, and the respondent would report for work only when such orders were available. It was further submitted that, as per the muster roll, the respondent had not completed 240 days of continuous service in any calendar year, and therefore, he was not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the statement of claim. However, the learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record in detail, particularly the cross-examination of the petitioner’s witness, during which it was admitted that the respondent had worked continuously for more than 8 to 9 years and had completed 250 days of service each year, proceeded to grant the reliefs mentioned hereinabove, which are now under challenge before this Court..
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi for the petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Modi submits that, as per the muster roll forming part of the record before the learned Labour Court, the respondent did not complete 240 days of service in any year, and that for the last 3 to 4 years, he had abandoned his services on his own. Therefore, it is contended that the respondent is not entitled to the reliefs claimed before the learned Labour Court. It is further submitted by learned advocate Mr. Modi that, on 11.08.2008, after resuming duty for half a day, the respondent abandoned his services, and hence, there was no illegal termination as alleged. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Modi that, despite the evidence on record, the learned Labour Court has discarded the same and partly allowed the reference in favour of the respondent. Learned advocate Mr. Modi, therefore, submits that the impugned award deserves to be set aside, and the present petition is required to be allowed.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocate and upon perusal of the reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court, it is required to be noted that, though the impugned award was passed on 28.07.2023, the present petition came to be filed and registered before the Registry of this Court on 20.08.2025. It emerges that as recovery application is filed by the respondent being Recovery C2 No. 492 of 2023, the present petition is filed. Before the learned Labour Court, it was the case of the respondent that he had been serving with the petitioner as a Godown Keeper for the past 21 years and was drawing a monthly wage
