IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2702 of 2009 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2703 of 2009 ==========================================================

VIJAYRAJ H SANGHVI Versus GOHEL CHANDRASINH NANSINH,C/O.PRAFULBHAI A PATEL,ADVOCATE, & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR JB DASTOOR(239) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS SHUBHA B TRIPATHI(5597) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR PARITOSH CALLA(2972) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR PRAKASH G PANDYA(3041) for the Respondent(s) No.1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 18/03/2026 COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. By the present Writ Petitions, the petitioners impugn the judgment and award dated 29.03.2006, whereby the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad, has partly allowed the reference of the respondent workman by directing reinstatement with 40% back-

wages.

2. The learned counsel Mr. J. B. Dastoor appearing for the petitioners submits that in the present case, except the bare statement of the respondent workman, no evidence is produced on record to show that the respondent workman was employed by the petitioners. He submits that there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties. The learned counsel further submits that once the respondent workman has claimed that he was an employee of the petitioners, he has to prove the same by way of cogent evidence. He submits that in the reference proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the respondent workman only stated that he had worked with the petitioners for eight years before his termination. He submits that however, no documentary evidence has been produced by the respondent workman for proving the same. The learned counsel submits that in absence of any cogent evidence in respect of employment of the respondent workman with the petitioners, the learned Labour Court could not have passed the award in favour of the respondent workman. He submits that the learned Labour Court, solely relying upon the oral evidence of the respondent workman, has granted the reliefs as prayed for in the reference proceedings. The learned counsel further submits that upon passing of the impugned award dated 29.03.2006, the copy of the same was served upon the petitioners by the office of the Labour Commissioner. Upon coming to know passing of the award, the petitioners had preferred Misc. Civil Application No.347 of 2006 for setting aside of the ex-parte award and seeking permission to contest the reference proceedings by bringing cogent evidence on record. The learned counsel submits that said application also came to be rejected by the learned Labour Court without assigning any cogent reason. He submits that the whole proceedings has been conducted against the petitioners without giving any opportunity to the petitioners to contest the same. He, therefore, submits that the impugned award be set aside and the petitioners be granted an opportunity to lead the evidence and contest the reference proceedings.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. Prakash G. Pandya appearing for the respondent workman submits that the respondent workman was working with the petitioners for eight years on a daily wage of Rs.120/- as lathe fitter. He submits that since the respondent workman had worked for so long, he had demanded pay-slip, attendance card, I-card and leave card as well as appointment letter. Instead of making available the same, the services of the respondent workman came to be terminated. He submits that the respondent workman thereafter raised an industrial dispute before the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner and thereafter, the reference came to be referred to the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad. The learned counsel for the respondent workman submits that in the said reference proceedings, the petitioners were duly served, however they chose not to remain present and contest the proceedings and there