ORAL ORDER

1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has impugned the award dated 08.08.2025 passed in the Reference (T) Case No.58 of 2024 by the learned Labour Court, Junagadh, whereby the respondent workman has been granted reinstatement with continuity in service without any back-wages.

2. The learned AGP Ms. Agneya Mankad appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Labour Court has not properly appreciated the evidence in support of the claim of the respondent workman. The learned AGP submits that the entire claim of the respondent workman is based on assumption. She further submits that there was no evidence on record to prove the case of the respondent workman before the learned Labour Court. She submits that initially, the respondent workman had worked as daily wager labourer and thereafter, he was appointed through the outsourcing agency. She submits that the learned Labour Court has not considered the fact that the respondent workman was being paid his salary through the outsourcing agency. She submits that since the respondent workman was working through the outsourcing agency, there was no question of issuing any termination notice or following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. She submits that the award has been passed ex-parte against the petitioner. She submits that the petitioner was never informed about the pendency of the reference proceedings before the learned Labour Court. She, therefore, submits that the petitioner could not place any cogent evidence on record to rebut the claim of the respondent workman. She, therefore, submits that the Special Civil Application be allowed and the impugned award be quashed and set aside.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. Jeet Rajyaguru appearing for the respondent workman submits that the respondent workman was working with the petitioner from 01.02.2010 till 16.02.2024 and he has worked continuously for the said period. He submits that the service of the respondent workman came to be orally terminated without following any due process of law. Aggrieved, the respondent workman raised a dispute with the Assistant Labour Commissioner, who, by communication dated 06.12.2024, made a reference to the learned Labour Court being Reference (T) No.58 of 2024. The learned counsel further submits that despite service of notice, the petitioner did not appear in the reference proceedings. He submits that the respondent workman produced oral as well as documentary evidence in the nature of copy of certificate issued by the petitioner as well as bank statement, which show that the respondent workman has worked with the petitioner continuously for a period of 14 years. He further submits that the learned Labour Court has relied upon such evidence to partly allow the reference in favour of the respondent workman. He submits that even in the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has not produced any evidence on record to controvert the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court. He, therefore, submits that the Special Civil Application be dismissed.

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

5. The fact in the present case reveals that the respondent workman was working as Safar Kamdar with the petitioner Organization from 01.02.2010 and was working as daily wager full time employee. The service of the respondent workman came to be orally terminated on 16.02.2024. The respondent workman has not been given any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation before termination of his service. The respondent workman had made a representation to take him back, which was not replied to by the petitioner. Thereafter, on 24.07.2024, the respondent workman issued the demand notice to the petitioner, which came to be duly served upon the petitioner. Still, the petitioner did not take any action on such demand notice. Aggrieved, the petitioner raised an