DEEP SECURITIES SERVICES THROUGH ITS OWNER PITAMBER RAMDUTT PATHAK vs JAGDISHBHAI BECHARBHAI PARMAR
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/6591/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6591 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DEEP SECURITIES SERVICES THROUGH ITS OWNER PITAMBER
RAMDUTT PATHAK
Versus
JAGDISHBHAI BECHARBHAI PARMAR & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NIRAV C BHATT(7420) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MITESH L RANGRAS(3324) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 09/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 by the petitioner praying for the
following reliefs:
“(A) This hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ
of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or
order quashing and setting a side impugned award
dtd: 24-11-2016 at Annx.-“A” passed by Ld. labour
court no. 4, Vadodara, in reference (LCV) case no.
624 of 2004 as well as impugned orders dtd: 16-12-
2022 at Annx.-“B” in recovery (C-2) application no.
169 of 2017 & 10-3-2026 at Annx.-“C” in recovery (C-
1) application no. 20 of 2023, passed by Ld. labour
court no. 4, Vadodara, respectively.
(B) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the
petition, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay
the execution and operation of impugned award dtd:
24-11-2016 at Annx.- “A” passed in reference (LCV)
case no. 624 of 2004 as well as impugned order dtd:
16-12-2022 at Annx.-“B” passed in recovery (C-2)
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 23:08:48 IST 2026
C/SCA/6591/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
application no. 169 of 2017 & impugned order dtd:
10-3-2026 at Annx.-“C” in recovery (C-1) application
no. 20 of 2023, respectively
(C) This hon'ble court may be pleased to grant such
other and further relief as necessary in the interest of
justice.”
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nirav
Bhatt for the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Mitesh Rangras for
respondent No. 2 remained absent.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
3.1 The workman was working as a watchman with the
petitioner from 01.06.1999. The workman was illegally
terminated from his services on 24.07.2004 without following
the provisions contained under the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (hereinafter, referred to as “ the Act ”). The workman
approached the learned Labour Commissioner who, upon
failure of settlement, referred the dispute to learned Labour
Court for adjudication. The petitioner, though served, did not
file any written statement. Respondent No. 2 appeared and
filed written statement at Exhibit – 6. The learned Labour
Court, vide award dated 24.11.2016, partly allowed
Reference and the order of termination dated 24.07.2004
was held to be illegal and the petitioner was directed to
reinstate employee with 30% back-wages.
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 23:08:48 IST 2026
C/SCA/6591/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award, the petitioner is before this Court by
way of the present petition.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that as the
petitioner was not having any work after 24.07.2004 and,
therefore, when the Reference was made before the learned
Labour Court, the petitioner could not contest the Reference due to
financial constraints. It is submitted that when the orders in
Recovery Applications came to be passed on 10.03.2026, the
petitioner realized that the order passed in the Reference
proceedings as well as the Recovery (C-2) Application and
Recovery (C-1) Application need to be challenged. It is submitted
that the petitioner was working as a contractor for different
companies. Respondent No. 2 – Executive Engineer was giving
the work contracts year to year to different contractors and the
petitioner was one of them. The work contract was given by
respondent No. 2 to the present petitioner for the period between
15.07.2003 to 24.07.2004. After 24.07.2004, the work contract
came to an end. Petitioner was regularly paying wages to
respondent No. 1 – workman and also maintaining muster roll for
all the employees. As the services of the workman were not
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 23:08:48 IST 2026
C/SCA/6591/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
required as the contract between the petitioner and respondent
No. 2 came to an end, the workman was relieved. In the Reference
Proceedings, the direction was issued against present petitioner to
reinstate the workman with 30% back-wages. It is submitted that
the grant of back-wages is without any evidence and it is not the
case made out by employee that he has remained unemployed
during the intervening period. It is submitted that the learned
Labour Court has not appreciated the evidence and has gravely
erred in directing the petitioner to reinstate the employee. It is
submitted that the orders passed under Recovery (C-1) Application
and Recovery (C-2) Application, respectively, are perversed and
require to be quashed and set aside along with the order of
reinstatement with 30% back-wages. Except above, no other
submissions were made by learned advocate for the petitioner.
5. Having considered the submissions made by learned
advocates for the parties and upon perusal of the papers placed
on record, it appears that the workman was in the employment of
the petitioner as a watchman since 01.06.1999. The petitioner was
holding a contract with respondent No. 2 and the contract was for
the period between 15.07.2003 to 24.07.2004. In the statement of
claim, it is alleged by the workman that he has been wrongly and
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 23:08:48 IST 2026
C/SCA/6591/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
illegally terminated by the petitioner on 24.07.2004. He worked as
a watchman from 01.06.1999 till 24.07.2004 continuously and,
therefore, he has completed 240 days of service preceding 12
calendar months from the date of termination. It appears from the
record that the Reference Proceedings had gone unchallenged as
petitioner, though served, did not file any written statement.
However, vide Exhibit – 63, in the Reference Case No. 618 of
2004, petitioner did file an affidavit, but, thereafter, did not remain
present for cross-examination and, therefore, the examination-in-
chief was discarded. The award of reinstatement with 30% back-
wages is passed on 24.11.2016 and the petitioner did not comply
with the said award for a long period of time. The workman, in the
year 2017 filed Recovery (C-2) Application which came to be partly
allowed on 16.12.2022 by directing the petitioner to pay
Rs.2,06,566/- with cost together with interest at the rate of 6% from
the date of application. The said order, it appears to have
remained disobeyed. Thereafter, the workman moved the learned
Labour Court by way of a Recovery (C-1) Application in the year
2023 wherein, the learned Labour Court partly allowed the
application and issued a Recovery Certificate for an amount of
Rs.2,99,823/-. The petitioner, thereafter, woke up from the slumber
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 23:08:48 IST 2026
C/SCA/6591/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
and approached this Court by way of the present petition. The
High Court cannot entertain any petition under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 when there is gross delay in
approaching the Court. The petitioner set tight over the order of
reinstatement with 30% back-wages for 10 years and the
challenge was made after the Recovery Certificate was issued
against the petitioner. The High Court, in exercising its jurisdiction
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950
cannot interfere with the award by re-appreciating and reassessing
the evidence when the learned Labour Court has found on
appreciation of evidence that the termination of the workman is
bad and illegal. This Court, while exercising powers under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 cannot disturb such
findings which are not perversed and illegal. This Court is of the
view that, in the aforesaid circumstances, the petition lacks merit
and the same is hereby, dismissed. The petitioner is directed to
comply with the award passed by the learned Labour Court within
a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
MUSKAN
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 23:08:48 IST 2026