IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13064 of 2024 ==========================================================

RANGE FOREST OFFICER, NORMAL RANGE Versus SHANKARBHAI MANABHAI BAMANIYA ==========================================================

Appearance:

MS. AGNEYA MANKAD, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 20/04/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner impugns the award dated 12.01.2024 in Reference (T) No. 86 of 2019, whereby the learned Labour Court, Godhra has partially allowed the reference and directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman without any back wages and consequential benefits.

2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Agneya Mankad appearing on behalf of the petitioner – Department submits that the respondent was working with the petitioner since 01.06.1993 to 30.09.2014 as a daily wager, drawing salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. It is alleged that his service came to be orally terminated on 30.09.2014. Aggrieved, the respondent-workman had raised dispute with the Assistant Labour Commissioner, who by communication dated 18.11.2019 has made a reference to the learned Labour Court, Godhra.

2.1 Learned AGP submits that the petitioner has led cogent evidence to show that the respondent- workman had abandoned his service after 30.09.2014. She further submits that even otherwise, the respondent - workman had not worked for 240 days in the preceding years and also there was no application of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act in the present case. Learned AGP further submits that the learned Labour Court has erred in holding that the respondent – workman was terminated from service and he had not abandoned his service. Learned AGP further submits that in respect of non completion of 240 days, the learned Labour Court has wrongly applied the provisions of Section 25 (B) of the I.D. Act to hold his service as a continuous service. It is submitted that the petitioner had produced the details of the service of the respondent- workman, which is also annexed at Annexure-D to the writ petition. She therefore, submits that the impugned award be set aside.

3. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave appearing on behalf the respondent – workman submits that in the present case even if going by the Annexure-D as relied upon by the learned AGP, it is not in dispute that the respondent is working with the petitioner since 01.06.1993. He submits that a perusal of the said chart, shows that the respondent has completed more than 240 days of work in at least three years and further taking into account the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation, decided on August 28, 1985 (AIR 1986 SC 458, 1985 4 SCC 71), the respondent- workman has completed 240 days in more than six years. Learned advocate for the respondent- workman submits that in the present case, the petitioner has stated that the workman had abandoned his service. He submits that however no evidence has been produced in this regard and therefore, the said contention has been rightly rejected by the learned Labour Court. He therefore, submits that the impugned award is just and proper and be upheld.

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

5. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the respondent - workman has started working with the petitioner - Department as a Watchman since 01.06.1993 as the per evidence brought on record by the petitioner. The respondent - workman has claimed that his service came to be orally terminated by the petitioner, whereas it is the case of the petitioner that after December, 2014, the work