IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8922 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ==========================================

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

GUJARAT PIPAVAV PORT LIMITED Versus RAJESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI MEHTA ==========================================

Appearance:

MR DEVANG J JOSHI(5345) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR RAJESH P MANKAD(2637) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 03/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE. Mr.Mankad, learned counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) for the following prayers:-

(A) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside dated 26.04.2024 passed in IA No. 1 of 2020, Exhibit 141 in Reference (T) No. 37 of 2003 by Labour Court, Amreli.

(B) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction permitting the Petitioner Company to adduce additional evidence in support of charges and punishment imposed by it as per the law.

(C) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of order dated 26.04.2024 passed in IA No. 1 of 2020, Exhibit 0 141 in Reference (T)

No. 37 of 2003 by Labour Court, Amreli.

(D) For ad interim relief in terms of para (A) above;

(E) For such other and further reliefs.

3. The brief facts of this petition are in nutshell that the petitioner – company had employed the respondent – employee as compounder, who was served with the charge-sheet on 29.10.2002. That after considering the reply dated 01.11.2002 filed by the respondent, the departmental inquiry was proceeded further and Inquiry Officer has submitted the report on 12.12.2002 whereby it was found that charges No.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are substantially proved whereas charge No.5 is not proved. On the basis of the same, the disciplinary authority terminated the service of the respondent on 20.12.2002.

3.1 It is contended that the respondent approached the appropriate Government and raised dispute for the same, which came to be referred for adjudication by the concerned authority and it was registered as Reference (T) No. 37 of 2003. On 09.12.2003, the respondent filed his statement of claim and the same was replied by the present petitioner on 12.04.2004 and on 13.10.2006, the reference was dismissed for want of prosecution, which came to be published on 18.11.2006. It is contended that the respondent had preferred Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2006 for restoration of the main reference which was also rejected on 15.10.2007 and, therefore, the respondent had preferred Special Civil Application No. 28278 of 2007 before this Court seeking to restore the main reference, which was allowed and remanded back the matter vide order dated 05.08.2019. On remand of the matter, the Labour Court proceeded further and departmental inquiry was challenged by the respondent seeking to frame the preliminary issue with regard to the legality and validity of the inquiry by filing application at Exhibit 19 on 23.12.2019. It is further contended that the said application at Exhibit 19 was allowed by the Labour Court and framed preliminary issue with regard to legality and validity of the disciplinary inquiry. The respondent had submitted certain documents below Exhibit 18 along with the application at Exhibit 19 and vide Exhibit 22, the respondent did not want to adduce evidence / oral evidence in support of the preliminary issue with regard to the legality and validity of the disciplinary inquiry. The petitioner had submitted an application to produce evidence d