IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14104 of 2024 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2569 of 2025 ==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus MANSUKHBHAI DEVAKARANBHAI PADASUMBIA ==========================================================

Appearance:

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14104 of 2024 MS SWEETY SAMARA, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR ND SONAGARA for MR. MUKESH T MISHRA(5900) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2569 of 2025 MR ND SONAGARA forMR. MUKESH T MISHRA for the petitioner(s) No.1 MS SWEETY SAMARA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No.1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 17/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. The present writ petition impugns the award dated 16.4.2024 passed in reference ( LCR) No. 03 of 2013 passed by the Labour Court, Morbi, whereby the workman has been reinstated into service with continuity from the date of raising of the dispute and 10% back wages.

Special Civil Application No. 14104 of 2024

2. Learned AGP Ms. Sweety Samara appearing for the State submits that the learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent workman has never worked at any point of time with the petitioner. She submits that in the muster roll records, which have been relied upon by the petitioner, there is no name of the respondent nor he has worked at any relevant point of time with the petitioner. She submits that the respondent-workman claims that he has worked in the petitioner establishment since the year 1999 till 2009, i.e., for a period of 10 years. She submits that in support of such statement, the respondent workman has produced no documentary evidence on record and has only orally stated so in his deposition. She further submits that the learned Labour Court ought to have appreciated that the petitioner had no proof whatsoever to claim such long service. She submits that the respondent workman was never recruited under any scheme. She submits that there is nothing on record to prove that the respondent workman has worked for 240 days preceding his alleged termination. She submits that in absence of any evidence on record, the learned Labour Court ought not to have allowed the reference and granted the reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages to the respondent workman.

3. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. N.D. Songara appearing on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Mukesh T. Mishra for the respondent-workman submits that the respondent had joined the service of the petitioner on 01.11.1999 and had worked till 15.06.2009, when the respondent’s services came to be orally terminated. He submits that the respondent workman has worked for a period of almost 10 years continuously. He submits that the petitioner, in his oral deposition, has stated the said fact which has not been shaken in the cross examination.

3.1. Learned counsel further submits that during the reference proceedings, the respondent-workman had filed production application (Exh.9) calling upon the petitioner to produce the relevant documents like muster roll, attendance-sheet, as well as the payslips of the respondent along with the seniority list and records of recruitment in the past 11 years. He submits that the said application came to be allowed and the petitioner was called upon to produce such documents on record. However, despite the order being passed, the petitioner chose not to produce any documents on record in respect of the attendance sheet, muster roll or payslips of the respondent. He submits that the learned Labour Court has rightly drawn adverse inference and has correctly relied upon the deposition of the respondent workman while partly allowing the reference. He submits that the Special Civil Application is devoid of merits and be dismissed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the submissions and perused the documents on record. The