IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19643 of 2015 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10262 of 2016 ==========================================================

DITABHAI NARJIBHAI MOHANIYA Versus RANGE FOREST OFFICER & ANR.

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

Appearance:

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19643 of 2015 MR DIPAK R DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS SWEETY SAMARA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10262 of 2016 MS SWEETY SAMARA, AGP for the petitioner-State MR DIPAK A DAVE, ADVOCATE for the respondent- workman ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 10/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Both these writ petitions impugn the common judgment and award dated 27.08.2015 passed by the learned Labour Court, Dahod in Reference (LCD) No. 14 of 2011.

2. The factual matrix in the present case is that the petitioner herein in Special Civil Application No. 19643 of 2015 was working as a Watchman with respondent No.1 since 1989 and had served continuously for more than 7 years before he came to be terminated orally w.e.f. 26.05.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer in the year 2000. The petitioner’s case came to be referred to the Labour Court, Dahod being Reference (LCD) No. 795 of 2000. The said Reference came to be renumbered as Reference (LCD) No. 436 of 2008. Because of non- appearance of respondent No.1, the same came to be allowed on 24.04.2009 and subsequently came to be restored and renumbered as Reference (LCD) No. 14 of 2011. By the impugned order, the learned Labour Court has held that there is breach of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘I.D. Act’) and has held that so as to avoid any financial burden on the Government, the petitioner is not allowed any back wages.

3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid, the petitioner- workman has filed Special Civil Application No. 19643 of 2015 for grant of back wages and State of Gujarat has also filed Special Civil Application No. 10262 of 2016 challenging the impugned award dated 27.08.2015.

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10262 of 2016

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Sweety Samara appearing for the petitioner- State submits that the learned Labour Court has erred in granting reinstatement to the respondent-workman. She submits that the respondent- workman had never completed 240 days of work in any given Calendar year. Learned AGP further submits that the respondent- workman was not entitled to any reinstatement in service. She further submits that the respondent-workman was working as a seasonal worker and therefore there was no continuous work of 240 days available in the establishment. She submits that the respondent -workman was employed for plantation work in the nursery. She submits that in view of requisite number of working days, not having been completed by the respondent-workman, he was not entitled for reinstatement. She submits that the impugned order is therefore bad in law and liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave appearing for the respondent- workman, upon instructions, submits that the respondent - workman was serving as a Watchman with the petitioner since 1989 and his services came to be orally terminated w.e.f. 26.05.1996 without giving any reasons. He submits that the oral termination of the respondent -workman is illegal. He further submits that juniors to the respondent were retained whereas the respondent was illegally terminated. He submits that despite best efforts, the respondent- workman could not find any other employment and therefore had raised an industrial dispute in respect of the same, which came to be allowed by the learned Labour Court by the impugned order. Learned advocate for the respondent – workman further submits that the respondent - workman had clearly stated on oath that