Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, L. S. PIRZADA, JJ.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Through Anil Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Labour Commissioner & Ors. - Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1177 of 2025 In Special Civil Application No. 2707 of 2024 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2025
Decided On : 02-04-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Keyur Gandhi With Mr Nisarg Desai With Ms Pravalika Bathini With Ms Ritu Agrawal With Mr Yash Modi For Gandhi Law Associates(12275)
For the Respondent: Ms Shruti Dhruve, AGP

The appropriate government's power to make an industrial reference is administrative, not adjudicatory. It cannot decide on the merits or determine whether an individual qualifies as a workman. Such disputed factual inquiries fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the labour court or industrial tribunal during formal adjudication.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act - Section 10(1) - Reference of disputes - Administrative order - Scope of judicial review - An order by the appropriate government referring a dispute for adjudication is an administrative act, not a quasi-judicial determination. While forming an opinion on the existence or apprehension of a dispute, the authority is not required to adjudicate the merits or the factual status of parties. (Paras 35, 39, 57)

(B) Industrial Disputes Act - Section 2(s) - Definition of workman - Adjudication of status - Disputed questions of fact, such as whether an individual qualifies as a workman or whether a resignation was voluntary, cannot be determined by the appropriate government during the reference stage. These matters fall exclusively within the domain of the labour court or industrial tribunal. (Paras 36, 49, 50, 60)

Facts of the case:
An employer challenged a governmental reference referring an employment dispute to the labour court. The employer contended that the individual was not a workman due to their managerial capacity and had voluntarily resigned, thereby negating the existence of an industrial dispute. The High Court, in a lateral appeal, reviewed whether the administrative decision was validly made.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the appropriate government is not empowered to delve into the merits or decide the validity of an employment relationship while exercising its power to make a reference. The administrative duty is limited to forming an opinion on whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. Determining complex disputed facts is the exclusive function of the adjudicating forum.

Issues: The primary issues addressed were whether the government must adjudicate the status of an employee as a "workman" before making a reference and whether the high court should interfere with such administrative references under its writ jurisdiction when factual disputes remain.

Ratio Decidendi: Making a reference is a purely administrative function subject to subjective satisfaction. The authority lacks jurisdiction to perform quasi-judicial adjudication on facts. Once it is determined that a dispute exists or is apprehended, the matter must be transmitted to the tribunal for trial on merits, where both parties can lead evidence and resolve disputes of fact.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background concerning the termination of employment and the challenge to the referral of the dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. contentions regarding whether the employee is a workman and if the government's reference under section 10 of the id act is justified. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
3. the government's role in industrial disputes is administrative; merit adjudication belongs to the labour court. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)
4. dismissal of the letters patent appeal due to lack of merit. (Para 62)

JUDGMENT :

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

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Keyur Gandhi with learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Desai with learned advocate Ms. Pravalika Bathini with learned advocate Ms. Ritu Agrawal with learned advocate Mr. Yash Modi for Gandhi Law Associates for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. I.G. Joshi for respondent no.3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve for the respondent State.

2. By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 the appellant original petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 28.07.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2707 of 2024 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant original petitioner holding that no error can be found in the administrative decision of the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner in referring the dispute to the Labour Court.

Facts:-

3. Brief facts of the case as per the averments in the petition, are that respondent no.3 Devendra Harshadbhai Pathak was working in the appellant company on the position of “Senior Executive/Manager Administration – Supervisor” with a salary of Rs.76,268/- per month.

4. According to the appellant, respondent no.3 was also given several authorities on behalf of the appellant company and was responsible for carrying out duties of managerial, supervisory and administrative nature. According to the appellant therefore, respondent no.3 never worked as a “workman” as defined in section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1948 (for short ‘ the ID Act’) with the appellant company but was working in the supervisory capacity.

5. It is the case of the appellant that respondent no.3 submitted voluntary resignation and accordingly, the appellant on 08.08.2023 relieved respondent no.3 from service as per the applicable terms and conditions of his employment and dues of Rs.4,43,468/- was also disbursed towards full and final settlement to respondent no.3 by the appellant company.

6. It appears that respondent no.3 after three months filed a complaint dated 06.09.2023 before the respondent no.2- Assistant Labour Commissioner, Vadodara challenging his termination/removal/separation from the appellant company.

7. Respondent no.3 also approached Cyber Crime Police Station, Vadodara alleging that he had not submitted resignation, however, such claim was rejected by the Cyber Police station pursuant to the inquiry.

8. Respondent no.3 thereafter issued notice dated 13.09.2023 upon the appellant company which was replied on 27.10.2023 by the appellant company along with supporting 35 documents to demonstrate that respondent no.3 was working in managerial and administrative capacity.

9. However, respondent no.2 by order of reference dated 28.11.2023 referred the dispute raised by respondent no.3 for adjudication which was registered as Reference (T-LC) No.410 of 2023 by the Labour Court, Vadodara. Respondent No.2 framed reference as under:

“Whether the workman Pathak Devendra Harshadbhai should be reinstated on his original place with continuity of service and back wages or not?”

10. Such order was forwarded to the appellant company by communication dated 05.12.2023.

11. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by resp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1245

Cases Referred (1)