DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST vs MANSUR NARANBHAI GADHAVI BATI
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/11670/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240523362024)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11670 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & ANR.
Versus
MANSUR NARANBHAI GADHAVI BATI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MRUNAL DHOLARIA AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 02/11/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present petition filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are assailing the
judgment and award dated 10.03.2023 passed by the learned
Labour Court in Reference (T) No. 76/2020, allowing the reference
preferred by the respondent workman, whereby the petitioners
were directed to reinstate the respondent workman to his original
post from 16.06.2020 with continuity in service without any back
wages.
2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mrunal Dholaria
for the Petitioner would submit that:
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:37:51 IST 2026
C/SCA/11670/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240523362024)
2.1 The judgment and award passed by the learned Labour
Court, Junagadh, is erroneous, bad in law and contrary to the
facts on record and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
2.2 It is further argued that the learned Labour Court had
directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent workman with
continuity in service, but without back wages. It is further
submitted that it was the case of the respondent workman that
he joined as a labourer with the petitioners' department from
01.04.2011 with his last drawn salary at Rs. 7900/- per month
and his services came to be orally terminated on 16/6/2020,
pursuant to which he lodged a claim before the Labour Court,
which was opposed by the petitioners herein by filing a written
statement wherein it was specifically contended that the
workman had worked in the department only for the period from
01.11.2009 to April 2014 and thereafter had voluntarily left the
work and thus was not entitled to any relief as claimed.
2.3 It is also the case of the petitioners that the workman had
worked as a daily wager in the guest house of Range Sasan Gir till
2014. Thereafter, he had joined the office of the Sanctuary Range
for which the respondent workman had produced the cash book
as well as other relevant material before the learned Labour
Court and had thus argued that such relevant material has been
overlooked by the Labour Court while passing the impugned
award.
2.4 It is further argued that the workman had never worked for
240 days in the previous year. It is further contended that the
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:37:51 IST 2026
C/SCA/11670/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240523362024)
workman had raised the dispute with regards to the reference
under question after a period of three years at a belated stage
and thus the claim was stale. Without considering the aforesaid
aspect, the Labour Court has partly allowed the reference and the
petitioners have thus argued to reject the present petition.
2.5 It is further submitted that even in the cross-examination,
the respondent workman has admitted that his appointment with
the petitioner department was purely as a daily wager and that
he was not appointed on any sanctioned post and thus, in the
non-availability of any sanctioned post with the petitioners'
department, no order of reinstatement ought to have been
passed.
2.6 It is further submitted that the petitioners' department is
governed by the general resolution dated 15.09.2014, wherein it
is categorically stipulated that the workman is entitled to
continuity only if he has completed 240 days in five consecutive
years. Since the workman had not completed 240 days, he
cannot be granted such benefit and therefore, the Labour Court
has committed an error. Thus, it is argued to allow the present
petition.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Mishra strongly opposed the present
Petition on behalf of the respondent workman:-
3.1 It is submitted that the judgment and award passed by the
learned Labour Court is just, fair, reasonable, legal and based on
sound principles of law and does not warrant any interference by
this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:37:51 IST 2026
C/SCA/11670/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240523362024)
227 of the Constitution of India.
3.2 The learned advocate would further submit that while
passing the impugned award, the Labour Court has considered
both oral as well as documentary evidence available on record
and has recorded specific findings on all the issues and that the
order passed by the Labour Court is in consonance with the
provisions of law. Having found that the services of the
respondent workman were already terminated and that the
factum of working only till 2014 is also dislodged from the cross-
examination, more particularly, having documentary evidence
placed on record to point out that even in the year 2018, the
department has deposited an amount in his account, under such
circumstances, the learned advocate has argued to reject the
present petition.
3.3 It is submitted that the petitioners have failed to produce
any documentary evidence from 2014 to 2020 despite there
being a specific contention raised that the workman worked till
15.06.2020 and was terminated orally on 16.06.2020. The
learned advocate has thus argued to reject the present petition.
4. Heard Learned Advocates for the respective parties.
4.1 The factum of the respondent workman being a daily wager
is not under dispute and he was initially appointed in the year
2009 as a casual labourer; however, from 1/4/11, he was
admitted as a daily wager.
4.2 The principal contention raised by the petitioners herein is
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:37:51 IST 2026
C/SCA/11670/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240523362024)
that the respondent workman had not completed 240 days of
service during the 12 months preceding the date of termination
and therefore, the learned Labour Court committed an error in
holding that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
have been violated.
4.3 It is required to be noted that the learned Labour Court,
after considering the evidence available on record, has concluded
in favour of the respondent workman. The said finding cannot be
disbelieved merely by relying upon the documents which are
produced by the petitioners for the period from 2009 to 2014
only.
4.4 It is an admitted position that, vide Mark 13/2, the
respondent workman had placed on record his bank statement
for the period from 2015 to 2020, wherein the last amount was
deposited by the petitioners in the bank account of the workman
on 06.11.2018, which is also admitted by the witness of the
petitioner during cross-examination.
4.5 Even the duty pass would reflect that he was on duty from
25.12.2018 to 31.12.2018. Despite the specific case of the
workman that he was working till June 2020, no record after 2014
has been placed on record. Thus, the petitioners cannot be
permitted to rely upon only selective documents by placing them
on record while disregarding the evidentiary consequences
arising from their failure to produce the relevant records despite
the specific case of the workman. The petitioners could have very
well stated on affidavit that they did not have any documents,
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:37:51 IST 2026
C/SCA/11670/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240523362024)
inasmuch as the payment made in the year 2018 is also not
under dispute.
4.6 It is also not in dispute that at the time when the services of
the respondent workman were terminated, the petitioners had
not followed the procedure as prescribed under the Industrial
Disputes Act by issuing any notice or paying wages in lieu of the
notice period.
4.7 It is further contended by the learned AGP that the
respondent workman had voluntarily abandoned his employment.
However, the petitioners have failed to substantiate the said
contention by leading appropriate evidence before the Labour
Court and the same merely remains on record as an assertion.
4.8 The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that despite the
workman having been instructed to resume duty, he failed to do
so and thus, in the absence of any material, it cannot be said that
the Labour Court has ignored the factual aspect and has arrived
at an erroneous conclusion merely on the basis of assumptions
and presumptions.
4.9 Thus, the learned Labour Court, having considered oral as
well as documentary evidence and having recorded findings
regarding the length of service of the respondent workman and
the circumstances under which the employment of the workman
was terminated, coupled with the fact that even other daily
wagers were also employed with the petitioners, the petitioners
have failed to demonstrate any perversity in the appreciation of
either oral or documentary evidence by the learned Labour Court.
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:37:51 IST 2026
C/SCA/11670/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240523362024)
4.10 Thus, the contention that the workman had abandoned his
employment, which itself has not been proved from the record of
the case, is required to be rejected at the very threshold.
4.11 Thus, having found that the reinstatement as awarded by
the Labour Court cannot be faulted with, since the violation of the
applicable provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act is supported
by the material on record, both oral as well as documentary, and
the petitioners having failed to demonstrate that the principles
relied upon by the Labour Court are inapplicable to the
controversy in the case on hand, upon examining the facts on
hand and the reasons recorded by the Labour Court, this Court
finds no ground to interfere with the findings of the learned
Labour Court.
4.12 Thus, for the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to make
out a case warranting interference with the judgment and award
passed by the Labour Court, since it does not suffer from any
perversity or patent illegality as would justify the exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition deserves to
be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed . The
judgment and award dated 10.03.2023 passed by the learned
Labour Court in Reference (T) No. 76/2020 is confirmed. Rule is
discharged. No order as to costs.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MMP
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:37:51 IST 2026