##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/19172/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

0.20145072798931662

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19172 of 2022

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

M/S REMCO PAPER AND BOARDS INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED

Versus

RAM VIKRAM PATIL & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MRS YOGINI V PARIKH(2163) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2

MS SANGEETA PAHWA, ADVOCATE FOR

THAKKAR AND PAHWA ADVOCATES(1357) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

Date : 30/04/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms.

Sangeeta Pahwa waives service of notice of rule on behalf of

respondent No.1 workman.

3. With the consent of the learned advocates for the

parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

4. By the present writ petition, the petitioner company

impugns the award dated 25.03.2022 in Reference (LCV) No.

45 of 2017, whereby the respondent No.1 workman has been

granted reinstatement and 70% back wages from the date of

Page 1 of 8

Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sun May 17 01:12:12 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/19172/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

0.20145072798931662

his termination till he has attained the age of 60 years.

5. Learned advocate Mrs. Yogini Parikh for the petitioner

company submits that the impugned award is passed under

misconception of law and facts. She submits that in the

present case, the respondent No.1 workman had abandoned

his service. Learned advocate further submits that the

respondent No.1 workman was absent from 22.04.2016.

Accordingly, a notice / letter dated 20.06.2016 came to be

sent to the respondent No.1 workman at his given address.

She further submits that in the said letter it was clearly

communicated to the respondent No.1 workman that he was

absent from work for a period 60 days and therefore he was

called upon to immediately report to work and explain the

absenteeism. Learned advocate further submits that the said

letter came to be returned back by the postal department

with the endorsement “not known”. She submits that the

petitioner company has set up a clear case of abandonment

of service by the respondent No.1 workman. The said letter

dated 20.06.2016 ought to have been read in the proper

perspective by the learned Labour Court and it was

erroneous to hold that the petitioner company had not

issued any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation

before terminating the service of the respondent No.1

workman.

Page 2 of 8

Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sun May 17 01:12:12 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/19172/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

0.20145072798931662

5.1 Learned advocate further submits that in the cross

examination of the respondent No.1 workman, he has

categorically stated that he has not come back to the

company after April, 2016. She submits that in view of the

clinching evidence on record, the learned Labour Court erred

in holding that the service of the respondent No.1 workman

came to be terminated. Learned advocate for the petitioner

submits that no further proof of abandonment of service

was required to be placed on record by the petitioner-

company, since the letter dated 20.06.2016 was sufÏcient

enough to infer that the respondent No.1 workman had

abandoned his service with the petitioner company.

5.2 In support of her contention, learned advocate Mrs.

Parikh for the petitioner company has placed reliance upon

the following judgments :

(i) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Phool

Chand reported in 2018 (18) SCC 299.

(ii) D.K. Yadav Vs. JMA Inds. reported in (1993) 3 SCC 259.

(iii) Viveka Nand Sethi vs. Chairman, J & K Bank Ltd. reported

in (2005) 5 SCC 337.

(iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. Om

Prakash passed in Civil Appeal No. 4393 of 20