IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2663 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7920 of 2025 ==============================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus SITARAMBHAI DAJIBHAI KOTI ==============================================================

Appearance:

MS SWEETY SAMARA AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==============================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.

PRACHCHHAK Date : 15/12/2025

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 07.01.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Valsad in Reference (L.C.V.) No. 58 of 2018 whereby the Labour Court has allowed the reference filed by the respondent and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent to his original post with continuity of service and awarded the cost of Rs. 4,000/-.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the respondent was employed as a Watchman with the petitioner since 2006 drawing a monthly wage of Rs. 4000/- and the respondent was terminated from the services on 03.04.2017. Consequently, the respondent raised industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner who subsequently referred the reference to Labour Court, Valsad which came to be registered as Reference (L.C.V.) No. 58 of 2018 whereby the Labour Court vide order dated 07.01.2023 has allowed the reference and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent to his original post with continuity of service and awarded the cost of Rs. 4,000/-.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 07.01.2023, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

4. Heard Ms. Sweety Samara, learned AGP for the petitioner and Mr. P C Chaudhari, leaned counsel for the respondent at length. Perused the material available on record.

5. Ms. Samara, 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. She has submitted that the respondent had not adduced any evidence to support his claim and that the entire claim was based on assumption. She has submitted 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. She has submitted that the respondent has not worked for 240 days at any point of time. She has submitted that the respondent was appointed as honorary serviceman and thus he will not be entitled for regular benefits which are available for regular government employees. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned AGP Ms. Samara 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. Chaudhari, 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