IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13483 of 2024 ==============================================================

RANGE FOREST OFFICER Versus DEEPAKBHAI MANSUKHBHAI BARIYA ==============================================================

Appearance:

MS AGNEYA MANKAD AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==============================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.

PRACHCHHAK Date : 04/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 12.01.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 84 of 2019 whereby the Labour Court had partly allowed the reference filed by the respondent and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service along with the cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the respondent was employed as a daily wager with the petitioner since 01.01.2011 and the respondent was orally terminated from the services on 03.09.2014. Consequently, the respondent raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Godhra whereby the Labour Court vide order dated 12.01.2024 partly allowed the respondent’s reference with order to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service along with the cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 12.01.2024, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

4. Heard Ms. Agneya Mankad, learned AGP for the petitioner and Mr. Dipak Dave, leaned counsel for the respondent at length.

Perused the material available on record.

5. Ms. Mankad, learned AGP for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is erroneous, bad in law and contrary to the facts and records of the case and therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside. She has submitted that the Labour Court has erroneously considered the fact that the petitioner would come under the definition of “industry” as per section 2(j) of the The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That, the respondent had not adduced any evidence to prove that he was working with petitioner since last 10 years. That, the Labour Court had not considered the fact that the respondent herein was not in continuous service with petitioner as per Section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned AGP Ms. Mankad has urged that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is required to be quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed.

6. As against that, learned counsel Mr. Dave, appearing for the respondent-workman, has opposed the present petition and submitted that there is no any infirmity or any illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court and therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the present petition. He has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is in consonance with the settled principles of law and is passed after following due procedure and therefore, the same is required to be confirmed and the present petition is required to be dismissed and no interference is required to be called for while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Considering the submissions canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, it appears that the Labour Court has rightly appreciated the evidence while coming to the conclusion and without there being any rebuttal. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Feder