SHRI RAJA NARAYAN PITTIE AYURVEDIK HOSPITALversusSANGEETABEN MADHUKAR THORAT

     C/SCA/9044/2025                             ORDER DATED: 20/02/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9044 of 2025

==============================================================
           SHRI RAJA NARAYAN PITTIE AYURVEDIK HOSPITAL
                              Versus
                 SANGEETABEN MADHUKAR THORAT
==============================================================
Appearance:
MR NISARG DESAI FOR GANDHI LAW ASSOCIATES(12275) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DARSHIT D THAKKAR(12434) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==============================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                           Date : 20/02/2026

                            ORAL ORDER


1.    Present petition is led by the petitioner under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 36(4) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as
“the Act”) seeking following reliefs:

      “a. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or
      writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
      order or direction, to quash and set aside the Impugned Orders
      dated 19.05.2025 passed by Labour Court, Vadodara below
      Exh. 11 and 14 in Reference (TLC) No. 48 of 2020.

      b. Pending admission, hearing and 0nal disposal of this Petition,
      your Lordships may be pleased to stay the implementation,
      execution and operation of the Impugned Orders dated
      19.05.2025 passed by Labour Court, Vadodara below Exh. 11
      and 14 in Reference (TLC) No. 48 of 2020 as well as stay on the
      Reference proceedings being Reference (TLC) No. 48 of 2020;

      c. An ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer (b) above
      may be granted; and

      d. Grant such other and further relief(s) as may be deemed 0t


                                Page 1 of 5
      C/SCA/9044/2025                                ORDER DATED: 20/02/2026




       in the interest of justice and equity.”


2.     Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
respondent was working as Honorary Laboratory Technician with
the petitioner-Hospital since December, 1989 and he was paid
monthly wages as per applicable minimum wages. That, the
respondent was terminated from services in July, 2019 by the
petitioner.       Consequently,   the      respondent     challenged           her
termination by way of an application before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Vadodara. However, upon failure of conciliation,
the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Vadodara for
adjudication being Reference (TLC) No. 48 of 2020. That, upon
receiving summons from the Labour Court, the petitioner had
 led an application at Exh. 12 seeking an adjournment to                        le
Vakalatnama and to peruse papers with list of documents as led
by respondent and to prepare and                le a Written Statement in
response to the Statement of Claim before the Labour Court.
That, the petitioner had also            led an application at Exh.13
seeking permission of the Labour Court to be represented by an
advocate under Section 36(4) of ID Act in reference proceedings.
However, the Labour Court passed impugned order dated
19.05.2025 whereby it has rejected the application of the
petitioner to le vakalatnama of its advocate and endorsed that
the vakalatnama may not be recorded in the proceeding on
behalf of petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner led an application
at Exh. 14 praying to suspend the order and adjourn the matter
for   ling appropriate application before this Court to challenge
the impugned order passed at Exh.11 application. The Labour
Court vide order dated 19.05.2025 rejected the application at
Exh 14.


                                  Page 2 of 5
     C/SCA/9044/2025                         ORDER DATED: 20/02/2026




3.    Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned orders
dated 19.05.2025 passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has
preferred the present petition.


4.    Heard Mr. Nisarg Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Darshit Thakkar, learned counsel for the respondent.
Perused the materials available on record.


5.    Learned counsel Mr. Desai has submitted that the
impugned orders 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 impugned
order not permitting the petitioner to represent itself before the
Labour Court through an advocate and further rejecting the
production of vakalatnama is contrary to the object of section
36(4) of the Act. He has submitted that the representation of the
petitioner before the Labour Court requires legal expertise
considering that the questions involved in the reference are
complex legal issues relating to the Act and since the petitioner
has no legal knowledge of the court procedure, the petitioner will
not be in a position to represent its case e?ectively in absence of
an advocate. On the contrary, the respondent is being
represented by Union Gujarat Mazdoor Sena which is a Union and
has legal expertise. He has submitted that the impugned order in
Exh.14 rejecting the adjournment application and refusing to
stay/suspend the order passed earlier is illegal since it deprives
the petitioner to avail the remedy of challenging the order
passed below Exh.11 before this Court. Over and above the

                             Page 3 of 5
     C/SCA/9044/2025                           ORDER DATED: 20/02/2026




grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr.
Desai has urged that the impugned judgment and orders passed
by the Labour Court are required to be quashed and set aside
and the present petition is required to be allowed.


6.    As against that, learned counsel Mr. Thakkar, appearing for
the respondent-workman, has opposed the present petition and
submitted that there is no any in rmity or any illegality in the
impugned judgment and orders passed by the Labour Court and
therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the
present petition. He has submitted that the impugned judgment
and orders passed by the Labour Court is in consonance with the
settled principles of law and is passed after following due
procedure and therefore, the same is required to be con rmed
and the present petition is required to be dismissed and no
interference is required to be called for while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.


7.    I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I
have also considered the impugned judgment and orders passed
by the Labour Court. It appears from the record that the Labour
Court passed the impugned order rejecting the application of the
petitioner to represent its case through an advocate only on the
ground that since last ve years the matter was pending before
the Labour Court and neither the petitioner nor its legal
representatives remained present before the Labour Court.
Considering the facts of the case, it is desirable to impose cost of
Rs. 10,000/- which shall be paid to the respondent within four
weeks from today with an undertaking that the petitioner may

                              Page 4 of 5
        C/SCA/9044/2025                                                   ORDER DATED: 20/02/2026




not further delay the proceedings. This Court is of the opinion
that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the matter
is required to be remanded back to the concerned Labour Court
for deciding the issue afresh.


8.        Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders
passed by the Labour Court below Exh. 11 and Exh. 14 are
hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to
the Labour Court, Vadodara. The aforesaid Reference is restored
to its original le. The Labour Court, Vadodara shall decide the
aforesaid          Reference            afresh        in      accordance           with       law,      as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the
date of receipt of the writ of this order, considering the fact that
the Reference is of the year 2020 after giving proper opportunity
of hearing to all the concerned parties. It is also noted that the
representatives of the petitioner and respondent will cooperate
to the proceedings pending before the Labour Court without
seeking any               unnecessary              adjournment. The                   petitioner         is
permitted to be represented through an advocate before the
Labour Court. The amount of cost shall be paid to the respondent
within time bound period.



                                                               (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 23/02/2026 17:44:59




                                                Page 5 of 5