STATE OF GUJARAT vs MAHESHBHAI JESINGBHAI BARIYA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/3477/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240193732025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3477 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3477 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MAHESHBHAI JESINGBHAI BARIYA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JWALANT VORA, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PARESH J BRAHMBHATT(9788) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 26/10/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The State has preferred the present petition under
Section 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging
the impugned judgment and order dated 02.07.2024 passed
by the learned Labour Court, Godhra, in Reference (T) No. 7 of
2016, whereby the respondent-workman herein, reference was
partly allowed, holding that the act of the petitioner herein of
retrenching the workman was illegal, and was reinstated at his
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 20:53:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/3477/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240193732025)
original place of service (being a daily wager), without any
back wages or consequential benefits, and further to pay Rs.
5,000/- as cost.
2. Learned APP, Mr. Jwalant Vora, for the State would submit
that the Labour Court has materially erred in observing and
holding that the respondent herein was in continuous service
with the petitioner, falling within the four corners of Section
25(B) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, (for the sake of
convenience hereinafter referred as the Act). The learned AGP
would further submit that the Labour Court materially erred in
not appreciating the fact that the respondent had not worked
for continuous period of 240 days in consecutive five years of
his service with the petitioner department, and had failed to
take into consideration the Government Resolution dated
15.09.2014, and also further erred in interpreting the
Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014 in its true spirit.
3. The learned AGP would further submit that the Labour
Court has passed the order merely on the basis of assumption
and presumption by drawing adverse inference in favor of the
respondent-workman. The learned AGP would further submit
that the Labour Court has materially erred in not appreciating
the fact that the respondent has not produced any evidence to
show that he had completed 240 days within the period of one
year from the preceding month where he was alleged to be
terminated. Learned AGP would further submit that even
otherwise, the Labour Court, without appreciating the
documents produced by the petitioner department and
detailed statement, has passed the impugned judgment and
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 20:53:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/3477/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240193732025)
order in favor of the respondent, that to also after a delay of
four years of alleged retrenchment by the petitioner. Learned
AGP would further submit that it is the specific case of the
forest department that the respondent-workman herein did not
present himself for work, and under such circumstances, there
is no question of retrenchment, and therefore, the procedure of
prior notice before retrenchment would not be applicable.
Thus, it is argued that the impugned award dated 02.07.2024
be quashed and set aside.
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. P.J. Brahmbhatt for the
respondent would submit that the case of the respondent is of
240 days continuous work, which has not been dislodged by
the petitioner herein by producing cogent documentary or oral
evidence, and that as per the settled law in the case of R.M.
Yellatti vs. Assistant Executive Engineer reported in 2006
(1) SCC 106 , the Labour Court was justified in drawing
adverse inference in the facts of the case in as much as the
petitioner had produced vide exhibit-17, the computer printout
of the abstract of workman's presence being recorded on
computer rather than placing on record the nominal muster
roll, and thus, when there is a specific case of the respondent-
workman that he had worked for 240 days before
retrenchment, and in as much as, there is no back wages
granted, this court should not interfere in the said award
passed by the Labour Judge, Godhra, in Reference (T) no. 7 of
2016 dated 02.07.2024, and thus, argued to reject the present
petition.
5. Having heard learned advocate for the respective parties
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 20:53:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/3477/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240193732025)
and having gone through the impugned award as well as the
affidavit in reply, the photocopy of which is placed on record
across the bar by learned advocate despite of the fact that he
had submitted the said affidavit before the Registry way back,
the same is taken on record. This court is of the opinion that
the present case is squarely covered by the judgment in the
case of R.M. Yellatti (supra) in as much as in the statement of
claim as well as the affidavit by the respondent herein has
specifically averred that the day from he joined the
establishment of the petitioner, has worked for 240 days
without any break. The petitioner having failed to place on
record the muster roll/wage register/attendance register, etc.,
the Labour Court was justified in drawing adverse inference in
as much as even if it is believed that the respondent worked
for only 85 days in the preceding 12 months from the date of
his retrenchment i.e. June 2012, would fall within the
contingency as provided under Section 25(B)(1), in as much as
Section 25(B)(1) suggests that the workman shall be said to be
in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in
uninterrupted service, including service which may be
interrupted on account of sickness, authorized leave, etc.,
while Section 25(B)(2) suggests that when he is not in
continuous service for a year, then a deeming fiction of
Section, 240 days is considered. If for a certain period the
employer is in no position to provide work, cessation of such
work without the fault of the employer would not be an
interruption in service, and the employer would be deemed to
be in service for such period. However, in the present case, the
respondent workman by positive assertion in the statement of
claim as well as his affidavit clearly states that he has worked
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 20:53:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/3477/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240193732025)
for 240 days in each year right from the day he joined the
services of the petitioner's establishment, but somehow in June
2012 was not allowed to work. The petitioner having failed to
discharge his burden by producing the documents as required,
now cannot raise the contention that the fiction of the
employee having worked for a period of 240 days as envisaged
under Section 25(B)(2) of the Act would not apply. Thus, having
found that the workman-respondent herein was in service
during the period that is not only on the date when he actually
worked but also on the days he could not work under the
circumstances set out in subsection 1 of Section 25(B) shall be
deemed to be in continuous service for the period under an
employer for the continuous uninterrupted period of one year
except the period of absence is permissible as mentioned in
the said Section. Thus, what is meant by continuous service for
the purpose of Section 25(B) is that the requisite for treating a
person to be in continuous service for the requisite period in
case of Section 25 is that either he should be in uninterrupted
service including service which may be interrupted on account
of the sickness or authorized leave, etc., which is not due to
the fault of workman or cessation of work for no fault of the
workman and if a workman completes continuous service of
employment for more than one year, thus, the petitioner
having failed to negate the assertion of the employee by failing
to discharge the burden, the learned presiding officer was right
in drawing adverse inference.
6. In view of the above, no interference is called for, and
therefore, the present petitioner is hereby rejected.
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 20:53:05 IST 2026
C/SCA/3477/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240193732025)
7. In view of the main matter itself is disposed of, the Civil
Application No.1 of 2026 (in Special Civil Application No.3477
of 2025) does not survive, and hence, disposed of accordingly.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
AMIT ITALIAN
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by AMIT DAHYABHAI ITALIAN(HCW0112) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 20:53:05 IST 2026