IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 304 of 2026 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/1504/2024 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 304 of 2026 ==================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus KARANSINH POPATBHAI RATHOD ==================================================

Appearance MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 JWALIT B SONEJI(7895) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA Date : 07/04/2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

[1] A demand reference was raised by the workmen, wherein they sought regularization of their services. After raising the reference, according to the workmen, they were orally terminated on 11.04.2022 without following the prescribed procedure, and consequently, they filed a complaint under Section 33 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as “the ID Act”).

[2] The Labour Court allowed the said application and directed that the workmen be reinstated within a period of 30 days from the date of the order.

[3] It may be pertinent to state here that the workmen alleged that they were orally terminated on 11.04.2022, and the Labour Court, by order dated 27.06.2023, directed their reinstatement.

[4] The Labour Court also directed that continuity of service and back wages be granted for the said period.

[5] Being aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, the State preferred writ petition. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, dismissed the writ petition, holding that prima facie the relationship of employer and employee had been established on the basis of the ID cards issued to the workmen as well as the presence reports produced at Exhibit 22.

[6] The State, being aggrieved by the dismissal of writ petition, has preferred the present appeal.

[7] The learned Assistant Government Pleader strenuously contended that if the order of reinstatement, continuity of service, and award of back wages is upheld, the State would be placed in a situation where the reference would effectively have to be allowed, and it would not be able to establish its contention that there was no employer and employee relationship.

[8] It is to be stated here that both the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge, on a prima facie consideration of the materials on record, have come to the conclusion that there existed an employer and employee relationship between the State and the workmen. However, such prima facie opinion shall not bind the Labour Court, and these observations made by the Labour Court as well as by the learned Single Judge are only for the purpose of granting interim relief. No opinion rendered by the Labour Court or the learned Single Judge or for that matter this Court, shall be construed as rendering an opinion on the merits of the claims of either of the parties to the reference.

[9] The learned Assistant Government Pleader has contended that the question as to whether the workmen had in fact worked with the State or were engaged through a contractor is still an issue at large, and therefore, if continuity of service and back wages are awarded, the State would be severely prejudiced.

[10] In our view, insofar as this apprehension is concerned, it would be appropriate to direct the State to deposit the back wages awarded by the Labour Court on the complaint under Section 33 (A) of the ID Act before the Labour Court. In the event the workmen establish that they had in fact worked for the State and that an employer and employee relationship existed, the amount so deposited shall enure to their benefit. However, if the State is able to establish that there was no employer and employee relationship between it and the workmen, and the workmen were in fact employed by a contractor and the State has no liability, the amount deposited by the Sta