STATE OF GUJARATversusJAGDISHBHAI CHHAGANBHAI PATEL

     C/SCA/12726/2020                               JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12726 of 2020


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

             Approved for Reporting                Yes          No

================================================================
                         STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                                  Versus
                   JAGDISHBHAI CHHAGANBHAI PATEL & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS ROSHNI PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1,2
FRESH RULE SERVED(4513) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR JIGNESH D LAMBA(12891) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                               Date : 02/03/2026

                                 JUDGMENT


1.       Present petition is   led by the petitioners - State Authorities
under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred
to as “the Act”) challenging the judgment and award dated
24.10.2019 passed by the learned Presiding O/cer, Labour Court,
Jamnagar (hereinafter be referred to as “the Labour Court”) in
Reference (LCJ) No. 40 of 2016 whereby, the learned Judge has partly
allowed the reference led by the respondent-workman and granted
reinstatement without continuity of service and without back wages.



                                   Page 1 of 5
     C/SCA/12726/2020                           JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




2.       Brief facts leading to the present petition are that, the
respondent-workman had worked with the petitioner department as a
daily wager from 01.06.1993 to 31.12.2008 with a constant wage of
Rs. 2,500/- and that his services came to be terminated orally on
31.12.2008 without any issuance of notice, without stating any reason
and without any pay in lieu of notice and therefore, the respondent-
workman raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court by             ling
Claim Statement on 27.09.2016. That, the petitioner-department
opposed the claim of the respondent by way of                 ling written
statement and also produced evidence on a/davit. That, the Labour
Court, Jamnagar after considering the submissions and after
considering the evidence produced on record, partly allowed the
Reference (L.C.J) No. 40 of 2016 by passing impugned judgment and
award dated 24.10.2019.


3.       Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned judgment
and award dated 24.10.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar in
Reference (L.C.J) No. 40 of 2016, the petitioners have preferred the
present petition.


4.       Heard Ms. Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader,
appearing for the petitioner – State Authorities and Mr. Yogen Pandya,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman.


5.       Learned AGP Ms. Patel has submitted that the impugned
judgment and 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 is based on assumption and
presumption and therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside.
She has submitted that the impugned award is passed without any


                                 Page 2 of 5
     C/SCA/12726/2020                          JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




jurisdiction as much as there is no evidence produced by the
respondent-workman in support of his claim. She has further
submitted that the Labour Court has committed a grave error in not
considering the case of the petitioner that the respondent-workman
had voluntarily left and chosen to remain continuously absent. She
has further submitted that the respondent-workman had never
worked with the petitioners and had continuously remained absent
during his service tenure. Over and above the grounds agitated in the
memo of petition, learned AGP Ms. Patel has urged that the impugned
award is required to be quashed and set aside and the present
petition is required to be allowed.


6.       As against that, learned counsel Mr. Yogen Pandya, appearing
for the respondent-workman, has opposed the present petition and
submitted that in case of similarly situated workman, who had
challenged the award of the Labour Court, Jamnagar of the even date
i.e. 24.10.2019 passed in Reference (LCJ) No. 56 of 2016 before this
Court in Special Civil Application No.5191 of 2020, this Court has
allowed the petition vide order dated 09.08.2021 and directed the
respondents – State Authorities to reinstate the petitioner on his
original post with continuity of service without back wages. He has
further submitted that the said order of the learned Single Judge was
further challenged by the respondents petitioners herein in Letters
Patent Appeal No.729 of 2022 and other allied appeals, which came to
be dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 07.06.2022. He
has further submitted that the State Authorities had thereafter led
Review Application challenging the order of the Division Bench, which
also came to be dismissed vide order dated 05.04.2024 and,
therefore, learned counsel Mr. Pandya has urged that the present
petition be dismissed.


                                Page 3 of 5
     C/SCA/12726/2020                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




7.       At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs State of
Punjab And Ors., reported in (2002) 9 SCC 492, wherein it has been
observed thus:-

         “3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on
         examining the materials on record, we fail to understand how the
         continuity of service could be denied once the plainti is directed to
         be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination. It is
         not a case of fresh appointment, but it is a case of reinstatement.
         That being the position, direction of the High Court that the plainti
         will not get continuity of service cannot be sustained and we set
         aside the part of the impugned order. So far as the arrears of salary
         is concerned, we see no in$rmity with the direction which was given
         by the lower appellate court taking into account the facts and
         circumstances including the fact that the suitwas $led after a
         considerable length of time. That part of the decree denying the
         arrears of salary stands a&rmed and this appeal stands allowed in
         part to the extent indicated above.”


8.       Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has enunciated that the
continuity of service cannot be denied to the workman if he is
directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of
termination.


9.       I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record and also the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gurpreet Singh
(Supra). The fact remains that in case of similarly situated workman,
this Court has allowed the petition in favour of the concerned
workman and against the present petitioners vide order dated
09.08.2021. The same was carried further in Letters Patent Appeal by



                                     Page 4 of 5
         C/SCA/12726/2020                                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




 the petitioners herein, which came to be dismissed by the Division
 Bench vide order dated 07.06.2022. Against which, the petitioners
 had        led Review Application almost after two years i.e. in the year
 2024, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 05.04.2024.
 In view thereof, the present petition does not survive and the same is
 required to be dismissed.


 10.         In the result, the present petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is
 discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.



                                                                     (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)

 Dolly




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: DOLLYBEN CHETANBHAI VADUKAR(HC01392), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 02/03/2026 17:22:29


                                                     Page 5 of 5