IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1219 of 2021 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-

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

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

IKYA HUMAN CAPITAL SOLUTIONS NOW KNOWN AS QUESS CORP.

LTD.

Versus PRANAYKUMAR GIRDHARBHAI RATHOD & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 REFUSED SERVED (R)(70) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 17/12/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the impugned award dated 29.2.2020 in Reference (T) Case No. 744 of 2017 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad whereby the Labour Court has partly allowed the said reference and granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 40% back wages.

2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that respondent No.1 was appointed as an Executive on a fixed-term employment contract by the petitioner vide appointment letter dated 15.02.2016. The contract was effective from February

2016 till 15.01.2017. Respondent No.1 was deployed at the Ahmedabad unit of Respondent No.2, Daikin Air Conditioning (India) Pvt. Ltd. The respondent accepted the contract and commenced work accordingly.

2.1 The petitioner is engaged in providing human resource services to various clients, including Respondent No.2. The work assigned by Respondent No.2 was project-based and for a limited duration. Accordingly, the petitioner issued a fixed- term employment contract to Respondent No.1, which was duly accepted by him.

2.2 Upon expiry of the contract on 15.01.2017, Respondent No.1 was continued purely subject to availability of work at Respondent No.2. Before a fresh contract could be issued, Respondent No.1 issued a legal notice claiming permanency benefits and thereafter stopped reporting for duty w.e.f. 20.06.2017. Subsequently, he raised an industrial dispute, which came to be referred as Reference (T) No.744 of 2017 before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad.

2.3 Before the Labour Court, Respondent No.1 admitted that he was working at Respondent No.2 and had accepted the appointment under the impression of being made permanent there. The petitioner led evidence and contested the reference. Respondent No.2 did not appear before the Labour Court.

2.4 The labour Court after evaluating the evidence placed on record, by award dated 29.02.2020, directed the petitioner to reinstate Respondent No.1 with continuity of service and 40%

back wages. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 29.02.2020 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (T) No.744 of 2017, the petitioner prefers the present petition.

3. Heard Mr.Dipak Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Mr.Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned award passed by the labour Court is completely illegal, erroneous, unjust and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr.Dave, learned counsel learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the it is a case of fixed period employment, contractual employment and therefore, there is no question of breach of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

4.1 Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner, also submitted that the respondent is not covered under the definition of “workman” as he was appointed in a supervisory category. He has submitted that the respondent was appointed as an Executive, and the salary drawn by the respondent was more than Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, having regard to the nature of his duties and the income drawn by him, he does