GVK EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH INSTITUTEversusBHAVSAR KANUBHAI RASIKBHAI

     C/SCA/14761/2020                              JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14761 of 2020


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

             Approved for Reporting               Yes          No

================================================================
       GVK EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE
                            Versus
                  BHAVSAR KANUBHAI RASIKBHAI
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ATRAYA K TRIVEDI(11333) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                              Date : 17/02/2026

                             ORAL JUDGMENT


1.       Present petition is filed by the petitioner 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 01.06.2020 passed by the
learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Himmatnagar (hereinafter be
referred to as “the Labour Court”) in Reference (L.C.H.) No. 80 of
2013 whereby, the learned Judge has partly allowed the Reference in
favour of the respondent-workman directing the petitioner to reinstate
the respondent-workman in service with 40% back wages.


1.1      By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the



                                  Page 1 of 13
     C/SCA/14761/2020                                JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




following reliefs :

         “A. be pleased to allow this petition;

         B. be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other
         appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature to quash and set
         aside the impugned order dated 01st June, 2020 passed in Reference
         (LCH) No. 80/2013 by the Learned Labour court, Himmatnagar;

         C. pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present
         petition, Your Lordships be pleased to stay implementation and
         operation of the impugned order dated 01st June, 2020 passed in
         Reference (LCH) No. 80/2013 by the Learned Labour court,
         Himmatnagar;

         D. such other and further orders as in the nature of circumstances of
         the case may be passed.”


2.        Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
petitioner operates 24X7 108 emergency response service in the
State of Gujarat since 29th August, 2007 in partnership with the
Government of Gujarat and the services rendered by the petitioner
was to provide ambulance and primary medical aid free of cost to all
users. That, the petitioner is nationally headed by a Chief Executive
Officer with a Board of its own, headed by the Chairman. That, the
petitioner has arrived at a public-private partnership with the
Government for providing said services and it enjoys operational
freedom and autonomy and similar kind of services are provided by
the petitioner in various States of the Country. That, the petitioner is
working without anticipating any profit as it does not charge any
money for the services being provided by it.


2.1      It is the case of the petitioner that, the respondent was working
as Driver (Pilot) with the petitioner and was confirmed in services on
20.10.2009. That, as per the rules of the petitioner, the services of its


                                     Page 2 of 13
   C/SCA/14761/2020                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




employees are transferrable and accordingly, the services of the
respondent were transferred from time to time. That, the services of
the respondent were transferred on five different occasions before
transferring him to Olpad, Surat vide order dated 06.06.2013. That,
the respondent did not resume his duties at Olpad, Surat and had
come to the office of the petitioner on 21.06.2013 to submit his
representation. That,     on the      said day, the            respondent        had
misbehaved, used abusive language and also threatened the officer of
the petitioner and for the said misconducts, the respondent was
issued showcause notice dated 26.06.2013. That, subsequent to the
showcause notice issued, inquiry was undertaken against the
respondent as per the principles of natural justice and the respondent
had remained present in the inquiry proceedings along with his
Advocate concern. Further the witness of the petitioner was also cross
examined in the inquiry proceedings. That, in the inquiry the
misconduct as alleged were proved and hence, the respondent was
issued second show cause notice dated 14.08.2013. Subsequently,
thereafter, vide order dated 03.09.2013 the services of the
respondent were terminated.


2.2    It is the case of the petitioner that the termination order was
assailed before the Labour Court, Himmatnagar, by the respondent by
preferring reference being Reference (LCH) No. 80 of 2013. That,
during the proceedings before the Labour Court, the Labour Court
vide order dated 14.12.2018 had upheld the inquiry. That, evidence of
the respondent was led at exhibit 24 and the petitioner had also led
evidence before the Labour Court and even cross examination was
undertaken. That, the Labour Court wholly on untenable grounds and
without     properly   appreciating    the      legal    proposition       of   law,
reappreciated the evidence, which is not permissible under Section


                                 Page 3 of 13
     C/SCA/14761/2020                          JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, once the inquiry is upheld,
and passed the impugned judgment and award dated 1st June, 2020.


3.       Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award
dated 01.06.2020 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Himmatnagar in Reference (L.C.H.) No. 80 of 2013, the
petitioner has preferred this petition.


4.       Heard Mr. Hamesh C. Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner - Institute and Mr. Atraya K. Trivedi, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent - workman.


5.       Learned counsel Mr. Naidu 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 therefore, the same is required to be
quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the Labour Court has
not appreciated the fact that the respondent-workman had committed
an offence of using abusive language and threatening of assault to
the superior, for which, departmental proceedings were initiated
against the respondent-workman and chargesheet was also issued.
He has submitted that during the proceedings before the Labour
Court, the Labour Court vide order dated 14.12.2018 had upheld the
inquiry and the inquiry proceedings was held legal and valid. He has
submitted that on one hand, the Labour Court has held the inquiry
legal and valid and on the other hand, the Labour Court has passed
the impugned award of reinstatement with 40% back wages, which is
illegal, erroneous and unjust and thus, the Labour Court has
completely ignored and overlooked the fact that the conduct of the
respondent-workman was not in the interest of the petitioner-institute


                                Page 4 of 13
   C/SCA/14761/2020                              JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




/ establishment as it was providing emergency services. He has
further submitted that the respondent-workman was serving as a
driver of the ambulance vehicle run by the petitioner, which was an
essential service and therefore, such kind of misconduct cannot be
tolerate and therefore, the petitioner had initiated inquiry as the
respondent-workman was not responding to his duty and did not join
the duty at the transferred place and on the contrary, the respondent-
workman had used abusive language against the superior officer and
had also given threat of assault and thus, the impugned award passed
by the Labour Court is illegal, erroneous and unjust. Over and above
the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr.
Naidu has urged that the impugned award is required to be quashed
and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed.


6.1    In support of his submissions, learned counsel Mr. Naidu has
referred and relied upon the following decisions :
[I] U P S R T C vs. Vinod Kumar, [2008] 1 SCC 115, relevant paras-7, 8,
10;
[II] General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Workers Union
vs. Managing Director, Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation
Ltd., [2006] 5 SCC 201, relevant para-7;
[III] Divisional Controller vs. Industrial Tribunal & Ors., Special Civil
Application No.71 of 2015, relevant paras-18, 19;
[IV] Mahindra and Mahindra Limited vs. N.B. Naravade, [2005] AIR
SCW 1115, relevant paras-10, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20;
[V] L.K. Verma vs. H M T Ltd., [2006] 2 SC 99, relevant paras-16, 23;
[VI] Management of Sundaram Industries Limited vs. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court and Another, High Court of Madras, W.P. No. 3551 of
2000, relevant paras-17, 19;
[VII] Divisional Controller vs. Industrial Tribunal & Anr., Special Civil


                                Page 5 of 13
     C/SCA/14761/2020                                JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




Application No. 20 of 2015.


7.       Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Trivedi, appearing for the
respondent-workman,       has   opposed        the   present     petition     and
submitted that the respondent-workman had remained present before
the management to join the duty but, he was not allowed to join the
duty. He has submitted that there was no evidence led by the
petitioner before the Labour Court to prove the charges levelled
against the respondent-workman. Learned counsel Mr. Trivedi has
emphasized upon the observations made by the Labour Court in para-
13(d) of the impugned award, whereby, the Labour Court has
considered that the concerned officer who was alleged to have been
abused by the respondent-workman, has not proved the offence by
leading cogent and material evidence and therefore, the order of
termination was held illegal and the respondent-workman was
ordered to be reinstated in service, which is in consonance with the
settled principles of law and therefore, under such circumstances, this
Court may not interfere in the findings recorded by the Labour Court.
Learned counsel Mr. Trivedi has submitted that the respondent-
workman has also filed further affidavit seeking compliance of Section
17B of the Act and urged that the respondent-workman be allowed to
join the duty and the impugned award passed by the Labour Court be
implemented in its true spirit. Learned counsel Mr. Trivedi has
therefore, submitted that the present petition be dismissed.


8.       I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also gone
through the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. The issue
involved in the present petition is that as to whether the impugned
award passed by the Labour Court is justified and is tenable in the eye


                                Page 6 of 13
   C/SCA/14761/2020                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




of law, since the observation made by the Labour Court while allowing
the application preferred by the petitioner at Exh.-20, where the very
Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has held the inquiry proceedings
legal and valid vide order dated 14.12.2018 and observed in para-
11(a)(b) and (c) as under :

 (a)   Upon perusing the records of this case, the Second Party was serving as a
       Pilot (Driver) in the First Party-Organization based on an appointment letter
       dated 07/05/2008 and a permanent employment letter dated 29/10/2009.
       He was transferred from Sabarkantha district to the Olpad location in Surat
       district vide letter dated 6/6/2013, the individual failed to report for duty at
       the new location from 15/06/2013 till the show-cause notice was issued on
       26/06/2013 and to avoid reporting to the transfer location, the individual
       sought to defy the transfer order by various means and went to submit a
       letter to his superior officer in Sabarkantha district, Mr. Sandip Gadhvi. At
       that time, he used abusive and insulting language toward Mr. Gadhvi,
       cursed the management, and threatened to kill Mr. Gadhvi, and by doing so
       he has committed a serious type of misconduct. A show-cause notice was
       issued on 26/06/2013 regarding this matter. The Second Party submitted a
       written response to the notice dated 26/6/2013 via a letter dated
       03/07/2013. Subsequently, a departmental inquiry against the Second Party
       has been scheduled on 23/07/2013 at 12:30 hours in Naroda and Mr R. B.
       Joshi has been appointed as investigating officer and the same was
       communicated to the second party via a registered AD letter dated
       15/07/2013.

               Upon perusing the record, as the Investigating Officer was not
       present on 23/07/2013, the investigation was postponed to 29/07/2013. The
       second party addressed a letter dated 23/07/2013 to the first party
       regarding this matter. This letter has been produced vide Exhibit No. 12
       within the documents submitted vide Mark 11/4 in this case.

               On 29/07/2013, the Investigating Officer, the Presenting Officer, the
       second party, and his defense representative, Mr. Mahendrabhai Motibhai
       Pandya, remained present for the investigation. Permission was granted to
       the second party to engage Mr. M.M. Pandya as his defense representative.
       Upon reading out the notice dated 26/06/2013 and on asking whether he
       admits the allegation or not?, the second party stated that he had
       submitted a reply to the show-cause notice to the organization on
       03/07/2013 and he further submitted that after three years of marriage, his
       wife was pregnant after extensive treatment and required care, therefore,
       as per medical advice, he was unable to report for duty upon inter-district
       transfer. Following this statement, further investigation was carried out.
       The Presenting Officer of the organization, Mr. Vimal Meghani, produced
       documents vide Mark 1 to 14 during the proceedings. The second party was
       directed to obtain copies of all such documents. As he informed that he has
       all the copies with him, the organization was directed to produce witnesses.


                                      Page 7 of 13
  C/SCA/14761/2020                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




      As the Presenting Officer-Mr. Vimal Meghani, on behalf of the organization,
      has requested to produce witnesses on the next date of hearing, the
      investigation was scheduled on 02/08/2013 at 12:30 hours and all the
      present parties signed in the minutes of the investigation proceedings, and
      a copy of the same was furnished to the second party.

              All parties remained present for the investigation on 02/08/2013 and
      the Presenting Officer, Mr. Vimal Meghani, produced Mr. Sandip Gadhvi as a
      witness on behalf of the first party-the organization. Upon being directed to
      record his statement, Mr. Sandip Gadhvi dictated his statement. The
      learned defense representative for the second party, Mr. M.M. Pandya,
      cross-examined the said witness. Subsequently, the second party also
      cross-examined the same witness and after the conclusion of questioning of
      the second party, Mr. Meghani conducted a re-examination. Thereafter, the
      cross-examination of the witness was declared as over. On being directed
      to produce further witnesses, Mr. Meghani stated that he did not wish to
      produce any further witness or evidence. Consequently, the evidence of the
      organization was declared as over and the second party was directed to
      produce his evidence. The second party recorded his statement on the
      same day, which was cross-examined by Mr. Vimal Meghani on behalf of
      the first party. Thereafter, as the second party declined to produce any
      further evidence, his evidence was declared as over and the investigation
      proceedings were declared as concluded and copies of the investigation
      proceedings were furnished to the second party.

             Based on the said investigation proceedings, the Investigating
      Officer submitted the findings of the inquiry on 07/08/2013, along with
      which a second show-cause notice dated 14/08/2013 was dispatched to the
      second party via registered AD. The second party submitted a reply to the
      same vide letter dated 18/08/2013. After that, it appears that the second
      party was dismissed from service vide order dated 03/09/2013.

(b)   The second party was dismissed following a departmental inquiry, the
      legality of which has been challenged by the second party. Therefore, it
      remains to be determined whether the investigation proceedings were
      conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice or not? At this
      stage, it only remains to be determined that whether any breach of the
      principles of natural justice was committed by the Investigating Officer
      during the course of the investigation or not? The perversity of the
      investigation findings is not required to be determined at the stage of
      deciding the legality of the investigation proceedings and if the
      investigation proceedings are held to be in violation of the principles of
      natural justice, the findings based on such proceedings shall automatically
      stand void and if the investigation proceedings are found to be in
      accordance with the principles of natural justice, the second party may
      subsequently make submissions regarding the perversity of the findings
      and the punishment imposed for the proved misconduct.

              Upon perusing the record of the investigation proceedings in this
      case, it is stated in the show-cause notice issued to the second party that
      he did not report to the place of transfer from 15/06/2013 to 26/06/2013



                                    Page 8 of 13
C/SCA/14761/2020                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




    and he has thereby disrespected a lawful order. Furthermore, such facts are
    clearly stated that on 21/06/2013, in an attempt to avoid reporting for duty
    at the place of transfer, when the second party went to serve a letter
    defying the transfer order to his superior officer, Mr. Sandip Gadhvi, he
    used abusive and insulting language with Mr. Gadhvi, hurled abuses at the
    management, and issued life threats to Mr. Sandip Gadhvi. The second
    party has submitted a reply to this notice. Upon receipt of reply of second
    party, he was informed that it was decided to initiate investigation
    proceedings against him and an investigating officer has been appointed
    and accordingly, the first party communicated the date, venue, and time of
    the investigation, as well as the name of the Investigating Officer. As the
    Investigating Officer did no remain present on the first scheduled date of
    the investigation, it was rescheduled on 29/07/2013, the show-cause notice
    was read out to the second party on the said date and he was inquired as to
    whether the charges were admitted by him or not ? As the second party
    did not admit the charges, the investigation was proceeded further. During
    the proceedings on that day, the institution produced documents including
    the show-cause notice, the acknowledgment slip thereof, a copy of the
    appointment letter of the Investigating Officer, a copy of the appointment
    letter of the Presenting Officer, a copy of the transfer order issued to the
    second party along with the receipt of service of the order, the reply
    submitted by the second party, correspondence addressed by the second
    party to the first party, reply of the show-cause notice submitted by the
    second party and letters dated 21/06/2013 and 03/07/2013 submitted by
    the second party regarding the stay of his transfer. Copies of which were
    received by the second party. Copy of the investigation proceedings have
    been furnished to second party. On the third date of the investigation,
    02/08/2013, the deposition of the witness of the organisation, Mr. Sandip
    Gadhvi, was recorded in the presence of the second party. The cross-
    examination of this witness was carried out by the learned defense
    representative for the second party, advocate Mr. M.M. Pandya, as well as
    by the second party himself. Upon concluding the cross-examination, as the
    first party stated that they did not intend to produce further witnesses, the
    stage of their evidence was declared over, and the second party was
    directed to produce his evidence. Subsequently, the second party recorded
    his statement, and his cross-examination was conducted on behalf of the
    first party. As the second party stated that he did not wish to produce
    further evidence, the investigation was declared as over.

            Thus, upon considering the record of inquiry proceedings, the
    opportunity was provided to the second party to file reply to the show
    cause notice. The witnesses of the organization were examined in the
    presence of the second party. Opportunity to cross-examine the said
    witnesses was also provided. The second party has received copies of the
    documents produced on behalf of the organization. The second party has
    been permitted to engage an advocate as a representative for his defence.
    An opportunity has been given to the second party to produce his evidence
    and statement. Further, second party was provided with the copy of the
    inquiry findings along with the second show-cause notice. Second party has
    submitted a reply to it. Thereafter, an order was passed for his dismissal
    from the service. Thus, at every stage of the inquiry, second party has been



                                 Page 9 of 13
   C/SCA/14761/2020                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




       provided reasonable opportunity for his defence. Considering the record of
       the inquiry proceeding, the second party has not raised any objection at
       any point during the proceedings of the inquiry. Upon considering the cross-
       examination arising from the approval application of the deposition on
       affidavit vide Exhibit-14, which has been accepted by the parties as cross-
       examination in this matter, it shows that the second party has admitted all
       the aforementioned facts in the cross-examination. Even after being
       provided with the copy of the proceeding of the inquiry, second party has
       not raised any objection against the legality of the inquiry at the respective
       time. Therefore, as the the inquiry proceedings conducted are as per the
       principles of natural justice, Issue No. 1 is decided in ‘Negative.’

 (c)   In this matter, Ld. Advocate for the Second Party Mr. J.S. Patel, has argued
       that, though there is no provision of transfer in the appointment letter
       issued to the second party, the second party was transferred from
       Sabarkantha to Olpad location of Surat district with a malafide intention
       that he would leave the job on his own. The said step taken by the
       organization is of the nature of victimization and a type of unfair labour
       practice and despite there being no provision of transfer in the appointment
       letter, he was transferred and charge sheet was issued whom the second
       party did not resume his duty at the place of transfer. As the said charge
       sheet was issued wrongfully, the inquiry conducted in pursuance of the said
       charge sheet should be declared null and void. The argument raised by him
       is not maintainable at this stage. Whether the first party has brought to end
       the service of the second party on the pretext of his transfer or not is to be
       decided at the stage of passing the final order. At this stage, what is to be
       considered is the fact whether an opportunity for defence was provided to
       the second party during the inquiry proceedings conducted against him or
       not. Issues like whether the findings reached at the end of the inquiry are
       perverse or not, whether the penalty awarded for the misconduct proved
       during the inquiry is shockingly disproportionate or not are to be decided at
       the stage of passing the final order. Ld. Advocate for the second party, Mr.
       Patel has argued that despite no complaint was produced during the inquiry
       proceedings which had been filed by Mr. Sandip Gadhavi against the
       second party, allegation regarding misconduct using insulting language has
       been levelled by the organization in the suo moto show-cause notice.
       Despite the said allegation is fabricated, the Inquiry Officer has considered
       it proved. Therefore, he has stated that the said inquiry should be declared
       void. Further, during the inquiry, no representation has been made
       regarding the absence of the second party and no evidence regarding the
       absence has been produced by the Officer of the place of transfer.
       Therefore, it has been submitted that allegation of absence is not proved.
       As stated above, both the said submissions are to be considered at the time
       of determining the perversity of the findings.


8.1    Before going to the facts of the case, the charges levelled
against the respondent-workman is required to be looked into, which
is reproduced hereunder :


                                    Page 10 of 13
   C/SCA/14761/2020                                JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




       (1)    This is to inform you that you were transferred to the location
       of the organization at Olpad, District- Surat on 06/06/2013. You had
       already received the said transfer order. Despite this, you have not
       resumed your duty at the location of your posting till date. Despite
       being explained orally by the officers of the organization in this
       regard, you have not reported to duty from 15/06/2013 till date,
       which has caused difficulties in providing emergency services at the
       Olpad location.

       (2)    Furthermore, as a part of avoiding reporting to your
       transferred location, you went to submit a letter dated 21/06/2013 to
       the superior officer of Sabarkantha, Mr. Sandip Gadhvi, which in one
       way or another defied the transfer order. At that time, during the
       course of his duty, you used abusive and insulting language towards
       Mr. Sandip Gadhvi, the superior officer and management authority of
       the organization, and you also threatened Mr. Sandip Gadhvi to kill
       him by stating that, 'I can hit you from behind when you are going on
       a bike.' Thus you have committed a grave misconduct.

       (3)    This is to inform you that you have deliberately disobeyed the
       lawful and reasonable order issued by the superior officer of the
       organization. This constitutes a serious offence.

              The acts mentioned above constitute a serious misconduct as
       per the service rules applicable to the organization. Therefore, you
       are informed to submit a written reply to the undersigned within 7
       days of receiving this notice as to why legal action should not be
       taken against you in this regard. If you fail to do so, it will be
       presumed that you do not want to say anything in this regard and
       further proceedings will be initiated accordingly.


8.2    Against the aforesaid charges levelled against the respondent-
workman, the petitioner initiated departmental proceedings for the
alleged misconduct and ultimately, the charges being proved, the
petitioner passed the order of termination. The respondent-workman
has challenged the legality and validity of the inquiry proceedings
before the Labour Court by way of preferring application below Exh.-
20 and after considering the facts and after considering the relevant
documents, the Labour Court has held the inquiry proceedings legal
and valid vide order dated 14.12.2018 as above. It is pertinent to note



                                 Page 11 of 13
     C/SCA/14761/2020                           JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




herein that, on one hand, when the Labour Court has held the inquiry
legal and valid and no violation of principles of natural justice is
found, on the other hand, the Labour Court is not justified in passing
the order of reinstatement alongwith other consequential reliefs and
therefore, considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case
of UPSRTC vs. Vinod Kumar, more particularly the observations
made in paras-7, 8 and 10, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held
that when the legality or validity of the inquiry conducted is not in
dispute and only the quantum of punishment is challenged before the
Labour Court, then the power Labour Court while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act is very limited as the Labour
Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision taken by the
disciplinary authority and now, it is well settled in series of judgment
of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, the Hon’ble Apex
Court has reaffirmed the view taken in earlier decisions. Therefore,
under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court
has exceeded its jurisdiction while exercising its powers under Section
11A of the Act while coming to the conclusion that the inquiry
proceedings is legal and valid, which was not under challenge, then
the only question remains is qua quantum of punishment and now it is
well settled in series of judgments as aforestated that the interference
of the Labour Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11A of
the Act is very limited and herein the present case, it appears that the
Labour Court without considering this aspect has interfered with the
order of quantum of punishment, which is completely illegal,
erroneous and unjust in view of the settled principles of law and
therefore, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is
required to be quashed and set aside.


9.       In the result, the present petition is hereby allowed. The


                               Page 12 of 13
        C/SCA/14761/2020                                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




impugned judgment and award dated 01.06.2020 passed by the
learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Himmatnagar in Reference
(L.C.H.) No. 80 of 2013 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made
absolute.

                                                                  (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 19/02/2026 15:31:23


                                                 Page 13 of 13