GUJARAT PIPAVAV PORT LIMITEDversusRAJESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI MEHTA

      C/SCA/8922/2024                             JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8922 of 2024


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

==========================================
        Approved for Reporting              Yes     No
                                                    No
==========================================
                 GUJARAT PIPAVAV PORT LIMITED
                              Versus
                RAJESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI MEHTA
==========================================
Appearance:
MR DEVANG J JOSHI(5345) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RAJESH P MANKAD(2637) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                            Date : 03/02/2026

                             ORAL JUDGMENT


1.       RULE. Mr.Mankad, learned counsel waives service of notice of
rule on behalf of the respondent.


2.       Present petition is 昀椀led by the petitioner under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 11A of the
Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) for the
following prayers:-

           (A) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate


                                  Page 1 of 6
      C/SCA/8922/2024                                JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




                 writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside dated
                 26.04.2024 passed in IA No. 1 of 2020, Exhibit 141 in
                 Reference (T) No. 37 of 2003 by Labour Court, Amreli.

           (B) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate
               writ, order or direction permitting the Petitioner Company
               to adduce additional evidence in support of charges and
               punishment imposed by it as per the law.

           (C) That pending the hearing and 昀椀nal disposal of this
               petition, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the
               operation and implementation of order dated 26.04.2024
               passed in IA No. 1 of 2020, Exhibit 0 141 in Reference (T)
               No. 37 of 2003 by Labour Court, Amreli.

           (D) For ad interim relief in terms of para (A) above;

           (E) For such other and further reliefs.


3.       The brief facts of this petition are in nutshell that the petitioner
– company had employed the respondent – employee as compounder,
who was served with the charge-sheet on 29.10.2002. That after
considering the reply dated 01.11.2002 昀椀led by the respondent, the
departmental inquiry was proceeded further and Inquiry O昀케cer has
submitted the report on 12.12.2002 whereby it was found that
charges No.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are substantially proved whereas charge
No.5 is not proved. On the basis of the same, the disciplinary
authority terminated the service of the respondent on 20.12.2002.


3.1      It is contended that the respondent approached the appropriate
Government              and raised dispute for the same, which came to be
referred for adjudication by the concerned authority and it was
registered as Reference            (T) No. 37 of 2003. On 09.12.2003, the
respondent 昀椀led his statement of claim and the same was replied by
the present petitioner on 12.04.2004 and on 13.10.2006, the



                                      Page 2 of 6
      C/SCA/8922/2024                            JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




reference was dismissed for want of prosecution, which came to be
published on 18.11.2006. It is contended that the respondent had
preferred Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2006 for restoration of
the main reference which was also rejected on 15.10.2007 and,
therefore, the respondent had preferred Special Civil Application No.
28278 of 2007 before this Court seeking to restore the main
reference, which was allowed and remanded back the matter vide
order dated 05.08.2019. On remand of the matter, the Labour Court
proceeded further and departmental inquiry was challenged by the
respondent seeking to frame the preliminary issue with regard to the
legality and validity of the inquiry by 昀椀ling application at Exhibit 19 on
23.12.2019. It is further contended that the said application at Exhibit
19 was allowed by the Labour Court and framed preliminary issue
with regard to legality and validity of the disciplinary inquiry. The
respondent had submitted certain documents below Exhibit 18 along
with the application at Exhibit 19 and vide Exhibit 22, the respondent
did not want to adduce evidence / oral evidence in support of the
preliminary issue with regard to the legality and validity of the
disciplinary inquiry. The petitioner had submitted an application to
produce evidence dated 28.02.2020 below Exhibit 24 and ultimately
the Labour Court passed further order on 04.11.2023 discarding the
oral evidence of the petitioner except for the purpose of the back
wages.


3.2      It is contended that in earlier round of litigation, the order
passed below Exhibit 19 was challenged by the petitioner before this
Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 21850 of 2023
wherein this Court had issued notice on 01.01.2024. In the meantime,
the Labour Court passed an order on 26.02.2024 in I.A. No. 1 of 2020
(Exhibit 141) in Reference (T) No. 37 of 2003 holding the disciplinary

                                 Page 3 of 6
      C/SCA/8922/2024                           JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




inquiry conducted by the petitioner as illegal and invalid and in
violation of principle of natural justice. The Labour Court had also
ordered to reinstate the respondent and        ordered proceedings to
continue to adjudicate the issue of back wages.


3.3      Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the
Labour Court in I.A. No. 1 of 2020, Exhibit 141 in Reference (T) No. 37
of 2003, the present petition is preferred.


4.       Heard Mr.Devang Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.Rajesh Mankad, learned counsel for the respondent at length.
Perused the materials placed on record.


5.       Mr.Devang Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of the
petition and has submitted that the respondent had preferred an
interim application, which was allowed by the Labour Court declaring
the disciplinary inquiry as illegal and invalid and against the principle
of natural justice and at the same time without giving an opportunity
to the petitioner to lead evidence. He has submitted that by deciding
the preliminary issue with regard to the legality and validity of the
departmental inquiry, the Labour Court, instead of granting the
opportunity to lead the evidence to justify the charge, has passed an
order directing to reinstate the respondent and the matter was kept
for further arguments with regard to the issue of back wages. He has
submitted that the matter was kept for adducing the evidence to
prove the charge against the respondent, but before providing an
opportunity, the Labour Court has adjudicated the dispute and
directed to reinstate the respondent which is unjust, illegal and
against the settled principles. He has submitted that the impugned

                                 Page 4 of 6
      C/SCA/8922/2024                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




order passed by the Labour Court is illegal, unjust and against the
settled principles of law and, therefore, the petition deserves to be
allowed.


5.1      In support of his submissions, Mr.Joshi, learned counsel has
relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Cooper Engineering Limited Vs. P.P.Mundhe reported in (1975)
2 SCC 661 and in the case of M.L.Singla Vs. Punjab National
Bank reported in (2018) 18 SCC 21 more particularly paragraphs
No.20, 21 and 22 which reads as under:-

           “20. If the Labour Court had come to a conclusion that the
           domestic enquiry is illegal because it was conducted in
           violation of the principles of natural justice thereby causing
           prejudice to the rights of the employee, respondent No.1-
           Bank was under legal obligation to prove the misconduct
           (charges) alleged against the appellant (employee) before
           the Labour Court provided he had sought such opportunity to
           prove the charges on merits.

           21. The Labour Court was then under legal obligation to
           give such opportunity and then decide the question as to
           whether respondent No.1-Bank was able to prove the
           charges against the appellant on merits or not.

           22. If the charges against the appellant were held proved,
           the next question to be examined was in relation to the
           proportionality of the punishment given to the appellant. If
           the charges against the appellant were held not proved, the
           appellant was entitled to claim reinstatement with back
           wages either full or partial depending upon the case made
           out by the parties on the issue of back wages.”



6.       On the other hand, Mr.Rajesh Mankad, learned counsel for the
respondent has submitted that let the matter be remanded back to
the concerned Labour Court to decide the preliminary issue 昀椀rst and
after giving an opportunity to both the sides for leading evidence and


                                      Page 5 of 6
        C/SCA/8922/2024                                                               JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




 then appropriate order be passed on merits. He has submitted that
 the Court may pass appropriate order.


 7.         Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
 submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and
 the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the matter
 deserves to be allowed and the impugned award deserves to be
 quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded
 back to the concerned Labour Court for deciding afresh.


 8.         In the result, the present petition is hereby allowed. The
 impugned order passed below Exhibit 141 is hereby quashed and set
 aside. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court for deciding
 the preliminary issue 昀椀rst and the Labour Court shall decide the same
 in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
 concerned parties as expeditiously as possible preferably as the issue
 is pending since 2003. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.


 9.         It is open for the parties to raise all the contentions before the
 concerned Court available under the law. It is also observed that the
 parties shall cooperate with the proceedings and shall not seek
 unnecessary adjournments.


 10.        Direct service is permitted.

                                                                      (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
 V.R. PANCHAL

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/02/2026 12:42:36




                                                          Page 6 of 6