IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16133 of 2025 ==============================================================

JAGRUTIBEN NANDLABHAI (JAGUBEN) JANI Versus DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SHRI & ANR.

==============================================================

Appearance:

JWALIT B SONEJI(7895) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==============================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.

PRACHCHHAK Date : 01/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 18.05.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar, in Reference (LCB) No. 21 of 2019, whereby the reference filed by the petitioner came to be rejected.

2. The case of the present petitioner is that she was appointed on 01.01.1993 and was illegally terminated from service on 30.04.2003. In order to challenge the said termination and to seek the relief of reinstatement, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which culminated in the filing of Reference (LCB) No. 21 of 2019. The learned Labour Court, after considering the submissions of both parties and on observing that the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to establish a violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or to prove continuity of service, dismissed the reference, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jwalit Soneji for the petitioner.

3.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Soneji submits that although the reference was filed after a delay, once the petitioner had prima facie established a case regarding the violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the learned Labour Court ought to have considered granting relief in the form of lump sum compensation, rather than outrightly dismissing the reference. Learned advocate Mr.Soneji submits that the petitioner had filed an application seeking production of the wage register and attendance sheet, which was duly allowed by the Court; however, the said order was not complied with by the employer. Despite this non-compliance, the learned Labour Court failed to draw an adverse inference in favour of the petitioner and proceeded to dismiss the reference. In view of the above, it is submitted that the impugned award warrants interference by this Court and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, it emerges from the record that, as per the statement of claim the petitioner's case is that she joined service on 01.01.1993 and was terminated on 30.04.2003. The complaint was filed on 09.10.2018 and was subsequently referred to the learned Labour Court on 24.01.2019. It is not in dispute that the reference was raised after a delay, and no cogent or satisfactory explanation for such delav has been offered by the petitioner. The learned Labour Court has taken into consideration the petitioner's cross- examination, wherein she admitted that she does not possess any documentary evidence to establish continuity of service. Furthermore, she failed to produce any material to demonstrate that other employees were engaged in her place or that juniors were retained at the time of her termination. Although an application was filed seeking production of the wage register and salary slips, this Court is of the considered view that the primary burden to establish illegal termination lies upon the petitioner. In this context, this Court has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State Of Uttarakhand & Ors. Versus Smt. Sureshwati reported in (2021) 3 SCC 108 wherein the Apex Court held that :-

26. A Division Bench of this Court in Bhavnagar Municipal Corpn. v. Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha (Bhavnagar Municipal Corpn. v. Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha, (2014) 16 SCC 130:(2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 513]

held that: (