IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13373 of 2021 ==========================================================

GIRISHBHAI KALUBHAI SOLANKI Versus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (JODHPUR ZONE) & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 12/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Present petition is filed by the workman under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act [hereinafter be referred to as “the ID Act”] challenging the impugned award dated 2.6.2021 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.1405 of 2009 whereby the Labour Court has dismissed the said reference.

2. Short facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as Sweeper with respondent-Jodhpur Nagr Palika in January 1985 and worked on permanent, sanctioned, vacant post. Subsequently the said Nagar Palika merged in the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 20.7.2006 due to expansion of the area of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and the workman working jn Jodhpur Nagar Palika are absorbed in the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. Since the services of the petitioner were terminated on 4.8.1996 i.e. prior to the merger of the Jodhpur Nagar Palika into Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, the petitioner raised industrial dispute under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act along with application seeking condonation of delay. The appropriate government referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Ahmedabad being Reference (LCA) No.1405 of 2009 which came to be rejected by the labour Court vide order dated 2.6.2021.

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

4. Heard Mr.U.T. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Hamesh C. Naidu, learned counsel for the respondent.

Perused the material placed on record.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the impugned Award dated 02.06.2021 passed by the learned Labour Court is ex facie illegal, erroneous and contrary to the documentary evidence on record and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5.1 It is submitted that the petitioner’s services came to be illegally and arbitrarily terminated orally on 04.08.1996 without issuance of any termination order, notice or compliance with the mandatory provisions of law. The petitioner had completed more than 15 years of continuous service with the respondent Nagar Palika and had worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year. Despite these undisputed facts, the learned Labour Court has rejected the reference on the hyper-technical ground that the petitioner failed to establish the date of termination.

5.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the respondent Corporation was specifically directed by the Labour Court to produce vital documents such as the Attendance Register, Wage Register and Identity Card Register for the period from 1986 to 2005. The respondent failed to produce the said records and did not file any affidavit explaining such non-production. In these circumstances, the learned Labour Court ought to have drawn adverse inference against the respondent, but failed to do so, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice.

5.3 It is further submitted that the reliance placed by the learned Labour Court on the Written Statement of the respondent Corporation, wherein it is contended that the petitioner’s services were terminated on 21.04.1986, is wholly misconceived and contrary to the respondent’s own record. The notice dated 10.12.1996 issued by the Chief Officer of Jodhpur Nagar Palika, which records alleged unauthorized absence from 02.08.1996, clearly establishes tha