RAJESHBHAI TAPUBHAIversusCHIEF OFFICER

      C/SCA/17668/2024                           ORDER DATED: 19/02/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17668 of 2024

==========================================================
                         RAJESHBHAI TAPUBHAI
                                Versus
                         CHIEF OFFICER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS NEHA C SHUKLA(6172) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SWEETY SAMARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                             Date : 19/02/2026

                              ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner has preferred present petition under
Articles 14, 16, 21 and 227 of the Constitution of India
r/w the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
challenging the order dated 26.12.2023 passed by the
Labour Court in Reference/T/LC No. 190 of 2015 whereby
the Labour Court has rejected the reference of the
workman.

2.      In present petition, the petitioner has prayed for
following relief/s:-
        "16 (a) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this
        petition;

        (b) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass an
        appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and
        setting aside award dated 26.12.2023 (ANNEXURE-A)
        passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in


                                 Page 1 of 7
     C/SCA/17668/2024                         ORDER DATED: 19/02/2026




       Reference/T/LC No.190/2015.

       (c) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the
       respondents to reinstate the petitioner on his original
       post with continuity of service and full backwages.

       (d) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other
       order or orders as may be deemed 3t under the
       circumstances of the present case."

3.     It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed
as a Sweeper in the Sanitation Department of respondent
No.1 in the year 1984 and had been continuously working
since then. According to him, on 01.06.2015 his services
came to be terminated without following due procedure
and without assigning any reason. While the petitioner
was in service, he met with an accident on 18.05.2014
during the course of employment, as a result of which one
of the toes adjacent to the left big toe was amputated.

3.1 On the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner raised an
industrial dispute which came to be registered as
Reference (T) LC No.190 of 2015 before the Labour
Court, Surendranagar.

3.2 In the said reference, the respondent 5led its written
statement at Exhibit 11. It was contended by the
respondent that the petitioner had also 5led proceedings
under        the        Workmen’s    Compensation      Act       being
Workmen’s Compensation (Non-Fatal) Case No.3 of 2015.
It was pointed out that in the said compensation
proceedings the petitioner had mentioned the date of

                                Page 2 of 7
     C/SCA/17668/2024                                       ORDER DATED: 19/02/2026




accident        as       18.05.2014,          whereas      in    the     reference
proceedings he stated that he sustained injury on
18.11.2014 while on duty. According to the respondent,
there was inconsistency regarding the date of accident
and therefore the petitioner had not stated true and
correct facts before the Labour Court.

3.3 The respondent further stated that the petitioner
was referred to the Referral Hospital, Chotila, where he
remained as an indoor patient and was treated. A 5tness
certi5cate was issued by the Referral Hospital on
01.12.2014.             According        to     the      respondent,         despite
issuance of the 5tness certi5cate on 01.12.2014, the
petitioner did not resume duty. It was further stated that
on 01.01.2015 the petitioner submitted an application
requesting that the period from 08.11.2014 to 01.12.2014
be    treated           as    medical     leave.      On    these      facts,         the
respondent denied that the petitioner was terminated on
01.06.2015              and    contended          that     the    allegation           of
termination was contrary to the record.

3.4 The Labour Court, after considering the pleadings
and evidence on record and recording its reasons in
paragraph 13 of the award, rejected the reference of the
petitioner.

3.5 Being aggrieved and dissatis5ed with that, the
impugned order passed by the Labour Court, petitioner


                                        Page 3 of 7
     C/SCA/17668/2024                            ORDER DATED: 19/02/2026




5led this petition

4.     Heard Ms. Neha C. Shukla, learned counsel for the
petitioner,        Mr.   Sanchela,     learned   counsel        for        the
respondent No.1 and Ms.Sweety Samara, learned AGP for
the respondent No.2.

5.     Ms. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the Labour Court passed the impugned
award without properly appreciating the material facts of
the case. She has that the petitioner had sustained an
injury during the course of his duty and was advised to
take rest, due to which he could not resume work.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this
crucial aspect was not considered by the Labour Court,
and therefore the impugned award is erroneous, illegal
and unjust, and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5.1 Ms. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that the petitioner had been working since
1984 and had rendered more than 25 years of continuous
service. However, on 01.06.2015, his services were
terminated by the respondent without complying with the
mandatory provisions of Sections 2(oo), 25F and 25B of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. She has submitted that
the termination amounts to illegal retrenchment and the
observation of the Labour Court that the petitioner failed
to establish illegal termination was assailed as being


                                Page 4 of 7
      C/SCA/17668/2024                        ORDER DATED: 19/02/2026




contrary to the record and therefore, liable to be set
aside.

5.2 Over and above the contention / ground raised in the
memo of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner
urges before the Court that petition may be allowed and
the impugned judgment and order may be quashed and
set aside.

6.      On the other hand, Ms. Sweety Samara, learned AGP
for respondent No.2 and Mr. Sanchela, learned counsel
for respondent No.1, opposed the petition and submitted
that the Labour Court, after appreciating the pleadings
and oral evidence on record, rightly dismissed the
reference. It was contended that the petitioner had not
stated true and correct facts either in his statement of
claim or in his oral evidence. In fact, during his cross-
examination, the petitioner admitted that he had not
resumed duty and had abandoned the job on his own. It
was therefore submitted that there was no termination by
the      employer        and   consequently   no     question           of
retrenchment. According to the learned AGP and learned
counsel for the respondents, the impugned award does
not su@er from any in5rmity or illegality and does not
warrant interference. Hence, the petition deserves to be
dismissed.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the


                                Page 5 of 7
    C/SCA/17668/2024                               ORDER DATED: 19/02/2026




learned advocates for the respective parties. I have also
perused the material on record, including the impugned
order and the proceedings before the Labour Court.

8. On perusal of the reasoning recorded by the Labour
Court,     particularly     from     paragraph      10     onwards,          it
emerges that there was a material discrepancy regarding
the date of the alleged accident. Before the Workmen’s
Compensation Commissioner, the petitioner stated that
he had sustained the injury on 18.11.2014, whereas
before the Labour Court he stated that the accident
occurred        on     18.05.2014.      The    petitioner       failed       to
satisfactorily         explain      this       inconsistency.          Such
contradiction goes to the root of the matter and a@ects
the credibility of his case.

9. Further, in his oral evidence, the petitioner admitted
that he had not resumed duty after the accident. The
Labour Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, came to
the conclusion that the petitioner had abandoned the
service and that there was no positive act of termination
on the part of the employer. In absence of proof of
termination, the question of retrenchment under Section
2(oo) and compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act does not arise.

10. The Labour Court has also recorded a clear 5nding
that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of


                                 Page 6 of 7
      C/SCA/17668/2024                                                                ORDER DATED: 19/02/2026




proving illegal termination by leading cogent and reliable
evidence. The 5ndings are based on appreciation of
evidence and do not appear to be perverse or contrary to
the record. While exercising supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court
does not act as an appellate authority to reappreciate
evidence. Interference is warranted only in cases of
patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the
present case, no such in5rmity is made out.

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, the petition
is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The impugned
award dated 26.12.2023 passed by the Labour Court in
Reference (T) LC No.190 of 2015 is hereby con5rmed.
Notice stands discharged.


                                                                        (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SURESHKUMAR MOTIBHAI SOLANKI(HC00208), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/02/2026 17:39:14




                                                       Page 7 of 7