DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER vs SHRI VAJESINH CHHATRASINH CHAUHAN
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/12754/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240367892026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12754 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Versus
SHRI VAJESINH CHHATRASINH CHAUHAN
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRADIP J PATEL(5896) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 22/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) By way of filing present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality,
propriety and validity of the judgment and award dated
30.03.2024 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra, in Reference (T.)
No. 151/2011, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs:
(A) Admit and allow this petition;
(B) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or
direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned Award dated
30.03.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Godhra, in Reference (T.) No. 151/2011;
(C) Pending the admission, hearing, and final disposal of this petition,
be pleased to stay the operation, implementation, and execution of
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 14:40:47 IST 2026
C/SCA/12754/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240367892026)
the impugned Award dated 30.03.2024 passed by the Respondent
No. 1, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Godhra, in
Reference (T.) No. 151/2011;
(D) Award the costs of this petition from the Respondents;
(E) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2) Learned advocate Mr. Pradip J. Patel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the judgment and award passed by the
Labour Court is unjust, illegal, perverse and contrary to the
settled principles of law and, therefore, deserves to be quashed
and set aside. He submits that it is the specific case of the
petitioner that the respondent was engaged as a daily wager and
was called for work as and when work was available. The
respondent claimed that he had worked continuously for a period
of seven years and that his services were orally terminated in
April 1997. However, the respondent failed to provide any
specific date of joining or a precise date of termination. He
further submits that the dispute was raised after a considerable
delay and that the claim was highly belated.
2.1) Learned advocate further submits that the respondent
miserably failed to produce any documentary evidence to
establish that he had completed 240 days of continuous service
in any year. Despite the absence of such evidence, the Labour
Court held that the respondent had completed 240 days of
service and drew an adverse inference against the petitioner for
non-production of muster rolls and other service records. He
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 14:40:47 IST 2026
C/SCA/12754/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240367892026)
submits that the initial burden of proving continuous service of
240 days was upon the respondent, which he failed to discharge.
He further submits that the petitioner had specifically raised
objections regarding the applicability of the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the status of the petitioner
establishment as an industry and the non-joinder of necessary
parties. However, the Labour Court failed to properly appreciate
the evidence and the contentions raised by the petitioner.
2.2) Learned advocate further submits that the Labour Court,
while holding the termination to be illegal for non-compliance
with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, awarded
lump sum compensation of Rs. 70,000/- along with costs of
Rs.5,080/- instead of reinstatement, considering the age of the
respondent. He submits that the impugned award is contrary to
the evidence on record and the settled principles of law.
Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case, the petition deserves to be allowed by quashing and
setting aside the impugned judgment and award.
3) I have gone through the record and proceedings and have
also considered the submissions canvassed by the learned
advocate appearing appearing for the petitioner.
4) It is an admitted position of fact that the respondent was
engaged by the petitioner as a daily wager. The respondent
raised an industrial dispute alleging that he had worked
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 14:40:47 IST 2026
C/SCA/12754/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240367892026)
continuously for a period of 7 years and that his services were
orally terminated in April 1997. The dispute was thereafter
referred to the Labour Court, Godhra, for adjudication. The
parties filed their respective statements of claim and written
statements, and evidence was led before the Labour Court. After
considering and appreciating the evidence and material available
on record, the Labour Court partly allowed the reference and
awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 70,000/- along with costs
of Rs. 5,080/- instead of reinstatement.
4.1) It is a matter of fact on record that the Labour Court had
directed the appellant herein to produce the documents
pertaining to the service record of the respondent, more
particularly, the muster rolls and attendance sheets. However,
despite the specific direction issued by the Labour Court, the said
order was not complied with. Therefore, the Labour Court drew
an adverse inference against the appellant. On the basis of the
factual aspect that the respondent had worked with the
appellant for more than seven years, the Labour Court held that
the necessary ingredients of the statutory provisions of law,
more particularly, Sections 25B, 25F, 25G and 25H of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, stood established. It is an admitted
position of fact that during the pendency of the proceedings
before the Labour Court, the respondent had crossed the age of
superannuation and therefore, was not entitled to get the
benefit of reinstatement. Therefore, the Labour Court awarded
lump sum compensation of Rs. 70,000/- to the respondent. Being
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 14:40:47 IST 2026
C/SCA/12754/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240367892026)
aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said decision delivered by
the Labour Court, the petitioner herein challenged the same by
way of filing a Special Civil Application before this Court.
However, the said petition came to be dismissed. However, at the
time of dismissing the same, the view adopted by the Labour
Court stood confirmed by the learned Single Judge.
4.2) It further appears from the record that an application was
preferred during the proceedings seeking production of the
documents pertaining to the service of the respondent. Despite
an order being passed by the Labour Court in that regard, the
petitioner failed to produce the relevant documents. In the
absence of such documents, the Labour Court drew an adverse
inference against the petitioner. In view of the above-stated
totality of the facts of the matter, I do not find any reason to
interfere with the said finding.
4.3) It is also required to be noted that the Labour Court, after
considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that
the respondent had completed 240 days of service during the
relevant period. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate
any perversity in the said finding warranting interference by this
Court in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
4.4) Furthermore, the Labour Court found that the termination
of the respondent's services was effected without following the
procedure prescribed under Section 25F of the Industrial
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 14:40:47 IST 2026
C/SCA/12754/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240367892026)
Disputes Act, 1947. The said provision requires compliance with
the statutory conditions before terminating the services of a
workman who falls within its ambit. The finding of the Labour
Court regarding non-compliance with the said provision is based
on the evidence and material available on record.
4.5) It is further required to be noted that the Labour Court,
considering the age of the respondent, awarded lump sum
compensation of Rs. 70,000/- instead of directing reinstatement.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the relief
granted by the Labour Court cannot be said to be unreasonable
or excessive so as to warrant interference by this Court.
5) In view of the aforesaid factual aspects, I do not find any
illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and award
passed by the Labour Court, Godhra, warranting interference by
this Court. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
GARVITA
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 14:40:47 IST 2026