GAURANGBHAI BALDEVBHAI RANAversusELECON ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED

     C/SCA/13637/2024                               JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13637 of 2024
                                   With
               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15701 of 2024


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
===============================================================

             Approved for Reporting                Yes          No

===============================================================
                         ELECON ENGINEERING CO. LTD.
                                   Versus
                        GAURANGBHAI BALDEVBHAI RANA
===============================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK DAVE WITH MR JEET Y RAJYAGURU(8039) for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                               Date : 05/03/2026

                                 JUDGMENT


1.       RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. UT Mishra, learned counsel
for the respondent waives service of notice of rule on behalf of
the respondent. With the consent of the learned counsels for the
respective parties, the present petition is taken up for                     nal
hearing today.


2.       Present petition is led by the petitioner under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking following reliefs:



                                   Page 1 of 10
     C/SCA/13637/2024                             JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026




         “(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of
         mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any
         other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside
         impugned award dated 29.06.2024 passed by the Labour Court,
         Anand in Reference (T) No.34 of 2021 qua awarding
         reinstatement with continuity of service, and further may be
         pleased to reject the Reference of the respondent in full;

         (B) Pending the admission hearing and 1nal disposal of this
         petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the
         execution, implementation and operation of the impugned
         award dated 29.06.2024 passed by the Labour Court, Anand in
         Reference (T) No.34 of 2021;

         (C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon'ble
         Court deemed 1t, in the interest of justice; may kindly be
         granted;”


3.       Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
respondent was appointed as Junior Engineer by erstwhile Prayas
Casting Ltd. on 05.06.2004 for a period of one year and was re-
appointed on 17.03.2005 for another one year. Thereafter, he
was again re-appointed for another 2 years w.e.f 01.04.2006.
That, from 01.04.2007 the petitioner con rmed his services and
designated him as Engineer in the grade of S5. That, Prayas
Casting Ltd. was merged with present petitioner M/s Elecon
Engineering Co. Ltd and accordingly, the services of the
respondent was transferred to the present petitioner company
without any service break. That, the respondent was promoted to
the post of Senior Executive w.e.f. 01.10.2018. That, he was
working as Senior Executive in the Heat Treatment Department
of the petitioner company. That, on 17.10.2020, the respondent
was relieved from services by paying three months’ notice pay in
lieu of serving three months’ notice period. Consequently, the
respondent approached Labour Court, Anand by way of                       ling


                                  Page 2 of 10
     C/SCA/13637/2024                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026




Reference (T) No.34 of 2021 whereby, the Labour Court vide
award dated 29.06.2024 directed the petitioner to reinstate the
respondent with continuity of service without back wages.


4.       Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned award
dated 29.06.2024 passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has
preferred the present petition.


5.       Heard Mr. Dipak Dave, learned counsel with Mr. Jeet
Rajyaguru, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. UT Mishra,
learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials
available on record.


6.       Learned counsel Mr. Dave has submitted that the
impugned award passed by the Labour Court is illegal, unjust,
arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on
record and the provisions of the Act and therefore, is required to
be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the Labour
court did not consider the fact that the onus to prove that the
respondent is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of
the ID Act is on the respondent and the said onus was illegally
shifted on the petitioner. He has submitted that the respondent
failed to prove his case that he falls within the meaning of
section 2(s) of the Act and this vital aspect was completely
missed by the Labour Court. The de nition of worker stipulated
in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is as under:

         “Section 2(s):-
                       ‘workman’ means any person (including an apprentice)
         employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled,
         technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,



                                    Page 3 of 10
  C/SCA/13637/2024                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026




      whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the
      purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial
      dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed,
      discharged for retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence
      of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has
      led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-

      (i)     Who is subject to the Air force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the
              Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of
              1957); or

      (ii)    Who is employed in the police service or as an o=cer or other
              employee of a prison; or

      (iii)   Who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative
              capacity; or

      (iv)    Who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages
              exceeding [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises,
              either by the nature of the duties attached to the o=ce or by
              reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a
              managerial nature.]”


He has submitted that the Labour Court did not consider the fact
that Executives, Senior Engineers and Junior Engineers were
working under the respondent in his department and the
respondent was supervising the work of these employees who in
turn supervise the work of workmen working in the said
department. The Labour Court has completely missed this vital
aspect while holding that the respondent is a workman as per
section 2(s) of the Act. He has submitted that the Labour Court
did not consider the fact that there is no evidence to prove that
the respondent has completed 240 days in the year preceding to
his termination and therefore, no reinstatement ought to have
been allowed.

6.1   He has further contented that in view of the settled legal
principles and in similar set of facts in the case of a junior


                                  Page 4 of 10
     C/SCA/13637/2024                         JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026




engineer of the petitioner-company, the Coordinate Bench of this
Court had allowed the petition which came to be challenged by
 ling Letters Patent Appeal and the Division Bench of this Court
con rmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge and
thereafter, the order passed by the Division Bench was
challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by             ling Special
Leave Petition and the Hon’ble Supreme Court con rmed the
order passed by the Division Bench of this Court and, therefore,
under such circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition,
learned counsel Mr. Dave has urged that the impugned judgment
and award passed by the Labour Court is required to be quashed
and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed.


7.       Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent in support
of his contention has referred and relied upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 (9) SCC 534 in the
case of Workmen of Hindustan V.O.Corporation Ltd Vs.
Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd. and Others and
urged that before passing the nal order in the petition preferred
by the employer being SCA No. 13637 of 2024, the appropriate
order may be passed to pay the amount under section 17B of the
Act.


8.       In the case of Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation
Ltd. and Others(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
and observed in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 as under:


                               Page 5 of 10
     C/SCA/13637/2024                                JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026




         “2. The order under challenge has been passed by a Division
         Bench of the High Court at Calcutta. Its operative portion states
         that the writ petition 1led by the present appellants and their
         application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act
         should be disposed of together, expeditiously. We are of the
         view that an application under Section 17-B should be disposed
         of before the principal petition and it should be disposed of
         most expeditiously.

         3. We, therefore, set aside the order under challenge to the
         extent that it requires the disposal of the writ petition and the
         Section 17-B application together and we direct that Section 17-
         B application should be disposed of with great promptitude and
         before the disposal of the writ petition.

         4. Section 17-B application shall be listed before a learned
         Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court expeditiously, and the
         parties may seek a 1xed date of hearing. It shall be open to the
         parties to raise all contentions in support of and against the
         application. It shall also be open to the 1rst respondent to rely
         upon the order of BIFR that it states has been passed.”

8.1      Mr. Mishra, learned counsel has opposed the present
petition and submitted that there is no any in rmity or any
illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by the
Labour Court and the present petition is required to be
dismissed.


9.       On the above referred facts, it appears that the petition
had come up for hearing before the Coordinate Bench of this
Court(Coram:            Hon’ble   Mrs.     Justice   M.K.Thakker)         dated
24.09.2024 wherein the Court had issued a notice and granted
interim relief on the condition that the petitioner shall comply
with the provision of section 17B of the ID Act and on subject to



                                   Page 6 of 10
   C/SCA/13637/2024                          JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026




compliance, the interim relief was granted. After passing of this
order, the respondent      led an aAdavit for the purpose of
compliance of section 17B and contended before this Court that
after removal from the services the employee has tried to obtain
work in diBerent establishments but could not get any work and,
therefore, he is not gainfully employed elsewhere and the order
of section 17B has not been complied with till date by the
petitioner.


10.    I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the respective parties and considered the
above referred decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. I am in
complete agreement with the submissions made by Mr. Mishra,
learned counsel and thus, I am of the opinion that              rst the
employer may pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards the lump sum against
the impugned award of section 17B of the ID Act as the
petitioner has not complied with the order till today i.e. for about
15 months. Considering the above facts, the compliance of the
judicial order dated 24.09.2024 is required to be made rst and,
therefore, the said amount of Rs.2,00,000 shall be paid towards
the compliance of section 17B of the Act as observed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred decision.


11.     So far as the merits of the petition is concerned, it was
contended by Mr. Dave, learned counsel that the respondent was
working as a Senior Executive and, in similar set of facts, in the


                             Page 7 of 10
  C/SCA/13637/2024                           JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026




case of a junior engineer of the petitioner company, the
Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with the subject
matter i.e. Special Civil Application No. 4710 of 2023 and
allied group of petitions preferred by the petitioner decided
on 24.12.2024 wherein the Court has dealt with the issue that
whether the concerned workman came within the de nition of
section 2(s) of the ID Act or not and after hearing both the sides,
the Court allowed the petitions and the award passed by the
Labour Court was quashed and set aside and the cross petitions
 led by the concerned workmen were dismissed. It appears that
the said decision was challenged before the Division Bench of
this Court by preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. 760 of
2025 and allied group of LPAs, which came to be decided by
the Division Bench on 26.06.2025. Upon referring various
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Division Bench of
this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S.Supehia and Hon’ble
Mr. Justice R.T.Vachhani) was pleased to con rm the order
passed by the learned Single Judge rendered in the group of
petition. Thereafter, the concerned workmen approached the
Hon’ble Supreme Court against the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court by     ling Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Diary No(s). 62376 of 2025 which came up before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court on 12.01.2026 and after hearing the respective
parties, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to con rm the
order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 760
of 2025 and allied group of LPAs. It appears that the observation
made by the learned Single Judge was con rmed upto the


                             Page 8 of 10
  C/SCA/13637/2024                          JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026




Hon’ble Supreme Court.


12.   In another set of facts, the workmen have challenged the
impugned award passed by the learned Single Judge by way of
preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. 1134 of 2025 in
Special Civil Application No. 8078 of 2022 which came up
for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court (Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Hon’ble Mr. Justice
L.S.Pirzada) on 15.12.2025 and after referring and relying upon
the earlier order passed by the another Division Bench of this
Court in the LPA No. 760 of 2025, the Division Bench of this Court
dismissed the group of Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the
concerned workmen. In fact, while dismissing the appeal, this
Court also refused to extend the bene t under section 17B of the
Act as observed in paragraph 12 of the order, as the order
passed by the Coordinate Bench which was con rmed by two
diBerent Division Benches and further con rmed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the present petition led
by the petitioner deserves to be partly allowed and cross petition
preferred by the workman being Special Civil Application No.
15701 of 2024 deserves to be dismissed.


13.   It is worthwhile to refer to the decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reported in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited
Vs. A.S.Raghavendra reported in 2024 INSC 265; the case of
Lenin Kumar Ray Vs. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd.
reported in 2024 AIR(SC) 5409; the case of Srinibas Goradia


                             Page 9 of 10
    C/SCA/13637/2024                                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026




Vs. Arvind Kumar Sahu rendered in 2025 INSC 1467.


14.      So far as the compliance of section 17B of the Act is
concerned, I am bound by the order passed by the Division
Bench, however, considering the fact that since the order of
issuance of notice passed by the learned Judge at the time the
judicial order was passed to comply with the provision of section
17B of the Act and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme           Court        referred         herein        above,         the       amount          of
Rs.2,00,000/- towards the lump sum is to be paid to the
respondent in compliance of section 17B of the Act otherwise as
it is observed by the Division Bench in paragraph 12 in LPA No.
1134 of 2025, this Court cannot pass the order to award
Rs.2,00,000/- towards section 17B of the Act for the compliance
of the judicial order.


15.      In the result, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent.


16.      In view of the order passed in Special Civil Application No.
13637 of 2024, the cross petition of the workman being Special
Civil Application No. 15701 of 2024 stands dismissed.




                                                              (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
ANUSRI


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANUSRI VASU(HC02352), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 20/03/2026 17:18:41




                                              Page 10 of 10