IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1134 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8078 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

JAYESHKUMAR VINUBHAI PATEL Versus ELECON ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR. KIRTAN H MISTRY(10012) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA Date : 15/12/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. U.T.Mishra for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave for learned advocate Mr. Kirtan Mistry for the respondent.

2. Admit. Learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave for learned advocate Mr. Kirtan H. Mistry waives service of notice of admission for the respondent.

3. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing as the controversy involved is in a very narrow compass and is being disposed of as under.

4. This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 and is directed against the Judgement and Order dated 22.08.2025 whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent-

Company challenging the award dated 10.01.2022 in Reference (T) No. 69/2014 passed by the Labour Court, Anand.

4.1 Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed as CNC Machine Operator w.e.f. 23.01.2009. According to the appellant, he was forced to tender resignation by the respondent-Company. The appellant also accepted the amount deposited in his bank account after tendering alleged resignation.

4.2 The appellant-original respondent filed a complaint before the Commissioner on 22.05.2014 raising the contention of forceful resignation and raised a demand for reinstating him with continuity of service and accordingly, the dispute was referred resulting into the Reference proceedings.

4.3 The Labour Court allowed the Reference in favour of the appellant and directed the respondent-Company to reinstate the appellant with continuity of service on his original post.

4.4 During the course of reference proceedings, the Labour Court considered the following two main issues;

(i) As to whether the appellant is required to be reinstated at his original post with continuity of service and to decide such issue, it was also to be decided as to whether the appellant had tendered the resignation which was accepted by the respondent-Company or there was violation of section 25N read with section 25F, 25G & 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short ‘the ID Act’] or not?

(ii) The Labour Court also considered as to whether the appellant was workman under the provisions of the ID Act or not?

5. Learned advocate Mr. U.T.Mishra for the appellant submitted that the appellant was employed as Machine Operator and was therefore, a workman under the provisions of section 2(s) of the ID Act. It was also submitted that the appellant never submitted any resignation and therefore, the Labour Court has rightly considered the alleged resignation tendered by the appellant as not a valid resignation and directed the respondent-Company to reinstate the workman for violation of the provisions of section 25N, 25F, 25G & 25H of the ID Act.

5.1 It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge has not granted the benefit under section 17B of the ID Act though the appellant had preferred an application being Civil Application No. 1/2024 in the writ petition filed by the respondent- Company along with the affidavit of the appellant that the appellant was not gainfully employed in any industrial establishm