ROUND FOREST , PAVAGADHversusSHRI VITTHALBHAI CHHAGANBHAI BARIA (AMENDED AS PER ORDER DT 05/05/2026)

      C/SCA/16789/2025                           ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16789 of 2025

==========================================================
                    ROUND FOREST , PAVAGADH & ORS.
                                 Versus
              SHRI VITTHALBHAI CHHAGANBHAI BARIYA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS RAJVI SHAH AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                             Date : 05/05/2026

                              ORAL ORDER


1.      Amendment is allowed and it is deemed to be incorporated.


2.      By the present Special Civil Application, the petitioners
impugn the award dated 28.08.2024 passed in the Reference (T)
No.40 of 2017 by the learned Labour Court, Godhra.


3.      The learned AGP Ms. Rajvi Shah appearing for the petitioners
submits that in the present case, the respondent No.1 workman has
not worked continuously for 240 days in each year for five years as
per the attendance-sheet. It is submitted that the respondent
workman was not a permanent employee and he was not working
on a sanctioned post. He was providing his service as a daily wager.
She submits that such daily wagers have no vested right of
regularization. She further submits that it is the case of the
respondent workman that he has been illegally terminated on



                                 Page 1 of 3
     C/SCA/16789/2025                                   ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026




31.12.2013.       However,   the   dispute       has   been    raised     by      the
respondent workman after a period of four years in the year 2017.
She submits that the learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate
that the respondent workman has not been able to prove his case
before the learned Labour Court and therefore, the impugned award
is liable to be quashed and set aside.


4.     Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. Dipak R. Dave appearing
for the respondent No.1 workman submits that the respondent
workman has worked with the petitioners from 01.01.1996 till
31.12.2013 continuously for a period of 17 years. He submits that
the respondent workman was illegally terminated after such long
period of service. He submits that the learned Labour Court, after
appreciating the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion
that the respondent workman has worked continuously from
01.05.1997 till 30.04.2012. He submits that the said finding is based
on the evidence produced by the petitioners on record. He submits
that no interference is called for.


5.     Heard the learned counsels for the parties, considered the
submissions and perused the documents on record.


6.     It is the case of the respondent workman that he had joined
the service of the petitioners on 01.01.1996 as a watchman on a
monthly pay of Rs.4500/-. It is the further case of the respondent
workman that he had continuously worked for the petitioners till
31.12.2013. In the present case, the petitioners have produced on
record the attendance details in respect of the respondent workman
in the Labour Court. A perusal of the same shows that the
respondent workman had worked from 01.05.1997 till 30.04.2012


                                   Page 2 of 3
        C/SCA/16789/2025                                                                ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026




for 240 days and more continuously. For few years, wherein the
respondent workman has worked for less than 240 days, the learned
Labour Court has held that such service has to be treated as
continuous service in terms of Section 25B(1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. In the facts and circumstances of the present case,
the learned Labour Court has partly allowed the reference and held
that the oral termination of the respondent workman was illegal and
in     violation          of      Section           25F       of      the       Industrial           Disputes            Act.
Accordingly, the respondent workman is directed to be reinstated in
service without any back-wages and other benefits. The findings so
recorded by the learned Labour Court are based on the evidence on
record as produced by the petitioner itself. The cogent reasons have
been assigned by the learned Labour Court to the findings so
recorded in the impugned award. No interference is called for.


7.         The Special Civil Application is devoid of merits and is
accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.




                                                                               (ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)

cmk
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: CHANDRASHEKHAR MAHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/05/2026 15:52:23




                                                         Page 3 of 3