IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2609 of 2026 ================================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH RANGE FOREST OFFICER Versus JAYESHBHAI LALITBHAI VYAS ================================================================

Appearance:

MS RAJVI SHAH, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 ================================================================

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

ORAL ORDER

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned award dated 22.11.2022 in Reference (LCB) No.41 of 2015, whereby the learned Labour Court has held that the termination of the respondent-workman was illegal and directed that he be reinstated in his original post with 30% back-wages with continuity of service.

2. Learned AGP Ms.Rajvi Shah appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent was a Chowkidar working with the petitioner from the year 2008 till 30.12.2012, when he abandoned his service. She submits that the respondent-workman voluntarily stopped coming for work. She further submits that the workman has failed to prove him claim. She further submits that the learned Labour Court has erred in holding that the respondent-workman was in continuous service for the period from 2008 to 2012. She submits that the respondent-workman has not produced any evidence in support of his claim. She submits that the Labour Court has further erred in appreciating the deposition of the petitioner. She submits that the attendance sheet, which is produced along with the writ petition reveals that the respondent has never worked for 240 days in the years of service he has put in with the petitioner. She submits that therefore the impugned award is bad in law since the respondent-workman was a daily wager and ought to have completed 240 days in the preceding years. She therefore submits that the impugned award be set aside.

3. Heard learned AGP for the petitioner-State. Considered the submissions and perused the documents on record.

4. In the present case, the impugned award dated 22.11.2022 has been challenged by way of the present petition filed in February, 2026 after a delay of around three and a half years. No explanation whatsoever has been stated in the memo of the writ petition. The present writ petition therefore suffers from unexplained delay and laches.

5. By the impugned award, it has been observed that the workman has clearly deposed that he was working continuously from the year 2008 till his oral termination in the year 2012. That thereafter, the workman has raised industrial dispute, which came to be referred to the learned Labour Court by communication dated 23.04.2015. In the reference proceedings, the respondent-workman has deposed that he has worked continuously for the period from 2008 till 30.12.2012. The deposition of the respondent-workman has not been shaken in the cross-examination by the petitioner herein. Further, the respondent-workman had filed Exhibit 11 application calling upon the petitioner to produce the relevant records in respect of his attendance and his service. However, despite an order being passed by the learned Court directing the petitioner to produce relevant records, no documents have been produced by the petitioner before the Labour Court. The petitioner herein has failed to bring any cogent evidence on record to dislodge the claim of the respondent-workman. Considering the deposition and the cross- examination of the respondent-workman and the documents placed on record, the learned Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the oral termination of the respondent-workman was bad in law and illegal and the respondent-workman was entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity and 30% back-wages. The impugned award dated 22.11.2022 is a reasoned order based on cogent reasons. The petitioner has placed on record the document purported to be the attendance of the petitioner for the