BABU RAGHU GHATILversusM/S ADD PEN LIMITED, UNIT-5

     C/SCA/16499/2023                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16499 of 2023


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

             Approved for Reporting                  Yes          No

================================================================
                               BABU RAGHU GHATIL
                                      Versus
                        M/S ADD PEN LIMITED, UNIT-5 & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS SIMRAN PAHWA FOR THAKKAR AND PAHWA ADVOCATES(1357) for
the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                                 Date : 02/02/2026

                                ORAL JUDGMENT


1.       Rule returnable forthwith. Learned counsel Mr. Yogi Gadhia,
waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent-
Company.


2.       Present petition is 昀椀led by the petitioner – employee 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 04.03.2023 passed
by the learned Presiding O昀케cer, Labour Court, Valsad (hereinafter be
referred to as “the Labour Court”) in Reference (LCV) No. 16 of 2006,



                                     Page 1 of 8
     C/SCA/16499/2023                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026




whereby, the learned Judge has rejected the reference 昀椀led by the
petitioner for reinstatement with backwages and other consequential
bene昀椀ts.


3.       Brief facts giving rise to present petition are that, the petitioner
was appointed on the permanent post of Helper w.e.f. 01.04.1987 and
continued to work with the respondents, which was doing its business
initially in the name of Deepak Pens Private Limited and thereafter,
the name of the Company was changed to M/s. Add Pens (India)
Limited, the respondent No.2 herein, which was run under the name
of M/s. Add Pens Limited i.e. respondent No.1. That, the respondent
was not issuing pay slip and was not paying the wages as per the
Minimum Wages Act and also subjected the employees to unfair
labour practice by denying monetary bene昀椀ts like bonus, leave, leave
encashment, increment, etc. and therefore, the petitioner joined new
union viz. Gujarat Rajya Kamdar Sena and raised various demands of
the     employees       before   the     management       and     therefore,     the
management pressurized the petitioner to resign from new Union. It is
the case of the petitioner that, as the petitioner refused to resign, the
Manager of the respondent orally terminated the services of petitioner
w.e.f. 06.12.2003. That, about 200 workmen were working in the
respondent and new contractual appointment on the post held by the
petitioner was made by the respondents. That, the petitioner in the
above set of facts was constrained to 昀椀le a complaint before the
Assistant Labour         Commissioner         for conciliation,    however,      the
respondents did not agree to resolve the dispute and the conciliation
proceedings failed and therefore, the Assistant Labour Commissioner
referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Valsad, which was registered
as Reference (LCV) No. 16 of 2006. That, the petitioner 昀椀led his


                                       Page 2 of 8
     C/SCA/16499/2023                          JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026




statement of demand. In response to statement of demand, the
respondents 昀椀led Written Statement and the parties led oral and
documentary evidence. After considering the oral as well as the
documentary evidence led by both the sides, the Labour Court passed
the impugned judgment and award dated 04.03.2023 rejecting the
reference 昀椀led by the petitioner.


4.       Being aggrieved and dissatis昀椀ed with the impugned judgment
and award dated 04.03.2023 passed by the learned Presiding O昀케cer,
Labour Court, Valsad in Reference (LCV) No. 16 of 2006, the petitioner
has preferred this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India read with the provisions of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.


5.       Heard Ms. Simran Pahwa, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of Thakkar and Pahwa Advocates, for the petitioner - employee and
Mr. Yogi Gadhia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -
Company.

6.       Learned counsel Ms. Pahwa 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
as well as provisions of law and therefore, is required to be quashed
and set aside. She has submitted that the Labour Court has
committed a serious error in not considering the fact that the
petitioner has produced ample documentary evidence to show that
the petitioner has worked with the respondent and even while
referring to the Register, the Labour Court has recorded in para-17 of
the impugned award that the petitioner had worked for the period



                                 Page 3 of 8
   C/SCA/16499/2023                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026




from April, 2000 to July, 2000 and also recorded the number of days
the petitioner was present and had worked and looking to the same,
the petitioner has worked for 92 days and therefore, as per Section
2(k) of the Act, the employer-employee relationship is also
established, however, the Labour Court has not appreciated the said
fact and not considered in its true and proper spirit. She has further
submitted that the petitioner has produced all the relevant
documentary evidence before the Labour Court, which are referred by
the Labour Court in paras-6 to 9 of the impugned award and the same
are also produced before this Court viz., the identity card issued by
the respondent at page-46, the salary slip at page-48, 49 and 50,
which clearly establish that the petitioner was working with the
respondent-Company, however, the Labour Court has not properly
appreciated the said documents and has committed a serious error
while appreciating those documentary evidence wile passing the
impugned award and thereby dismissing the reference preferred by
the present petitioner. She has submitted that the petitioner had also
preferred application before the Labour Court for production of
documents, which was allowed, however, the Labour Court has not
considered the same while passing the impugned award and has
rejected the reference preferred by the petitioner. She has further
submitted that the Labour Court ought to have drawn inference
against    the        respondents   inasmuch       as   though     directed,     the
respondents had not produced the service record of the petitioner for
the period between 1987 to 2003 during which, the petitioner had
continuously worked and on the basis of that, the Labour Court ought
to have passed the order in favour of the present petitioner, however,
the Labour Court has not considered these aspects while passing the
impugned award rejecting the reference preferred by the petitioner.


                                     Page 4 of 8
     C/SCA/16499/2023                           JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026




Learned counsel Ms. Pahwa has referred and relied upon the decision
of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of Director, Fisheries
Terminal Department vs. Bhikhubhai Meghjibhai Chavda,
reported in [2010] 1 SCC 47, more particularly the observations
made in paras-17 and 18, wherein, it is held that the burden of proof
to prove that the workman has not worked for 240 days in previous
years shifts upon the employer, once the employee has deposed on
oath that he has worked for 240 days in previous years to establish
the employer-employee relationship. Over and above the grounds
agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Ms. Pahwa has
urged that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour
Court is erroneous, illegal and unjust and the same is required to be
quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be
allowed.


7.       On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Gadhia, appearing on
behalf of the respondent-Company, has objected the present petition
and submitted that infact, the petitioner after 昀椀ling of the reference,
had not come forward to produce any evidence and therefore, the
Labour Court had closed the stage of evidence on the part of the
petitioner in the year 2018. He has submitted that the petitioner had
not turned up for almost 12 years and had not produced any
documentary evidence and thereafter, the stage was reopened on
presence of the petitioner subsequently but, after 昀椀ling of a昀케davit
also, the petitioner did not remain present for cross-examination and
therefore, the respondent had moved an application for discarding the
a昀케davit, wherein the Labour Court has passed the order in the year
2021, and thus, on every occasion, the Labour Court has passed the
orders, which were never challenged by the petitioner by way of


                                Page 5 of 8
   C/SCA/16499/2023                            JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026




preferring any petition to re-open his rights. He has submitted that
after considering the orders, which are produced on record by the
respondent at Exh.-11, 12 and 20, which were never objected by the
petitioner, the Labour Court has rightly passed the impugned award
and there is no any in昀椀rmity or any illegality committed by the Labour
Court. It was also further pointed out by the learned counsel Mr.
Gadhia that even the representative of the Union, who was
representing the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court, has
put endorsement over the joint pursis dated 16.07.2018 昀椀led by both
the parties before the Labour Court, which is produced at Exh.-10,
wherein, it was mentioned that the documents produced in the other
case being Reference No.171 of 2005 viz., attendance register, salary
register, bonus register be considered as a part of record of the
present case also, the certi昀椀ed copy of which is also produced by the
respondent before this Court, for which the petitioner as well as the
respondent have no objection to treat the same as part and parcel of
the documents produced in the present reference and therefore,
under such circumstances, the Labour Court has not committed any
error while appreciating the said facts and while recording that the
petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence in support of
his say that he has completed 240 days in each calender year prior to
the date of termination. He has further submitted that even in the
complaint given by the petitioner before the Labour Commissioner, in
column no.5, the petitioner has mentioned his age as 24 years and in
column no.13, the tenure of service put in by the petitioner is shown
as 14 years i.e. he had joined the service of the respondent from
01.04.1987, though his date of birth was 21.08.1979, meaning
thereby, that the petitioner was serving from the age of 8 years and
therefore, the Labour Court while considering the said fact has


                               Page 6 of 8
     C/SCA/16499/2023                           JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026




recorded that it is completely impossible that the petitioner has
started working at the age of 8 years and therefore, the contention
raised by the petitioner is completely improbable and thus, after
considering all these aspects, the Labour Court has passed the
impugned award dismissing the reference preferred by the petitioner.
Learned counsel Mr. Gadhia has therefore, urged that there is no any
in昀椀rmity or any irregularity or any illegality committed by the Labour
Court while passing the impugned award and no interference is
required to be called for in the present petition and 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, wherein,
the Labour Court has recorded the submissions canvassed by both the
sides and also considered the evidence led by both the sides. From
the cross-examination of the petitioner recorded by the Labour Court,
which is produced at page-42 of the compilation, it appears that the
Labour Court has rightly passed the impugned award and rejected the
reference preferred by the petitioner. If we consider that the
petitioner has worked for four months from April, 2000 to July, 2000
for a total period of 92 days as recorded by the Labour Court and after
the year 2002, the petitioner had never worked with the respondent
and now, almost 23 years have been past, therefore, at this stage, it
will be in 昀椀tness of things if the award passed by the Labour Court is
suitably modi昀椀ed by granting lumpsum compensation of Rs.1 Lac
towards full and 昀椀nal settlement of all the dues of the employee. So
far the provisions of Sections 2(oo) and 25(F) of the Act are
concerned, the petitioner has not proved before the Labour Court that


                                 Page 7 of 8
        C/SCA/16499/2023                                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026




he had completed 240 days, however, without entering into all these
aspects that now it is well settled, the Court is of the opinion that the
petition is required to be partly allowed by awarding lumpsum
compensation as aforesaid.


8.1         At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision
of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of Incharge O昀케cer and
Another vs. Shankar Shetty, reported in [2010] 9 SCC 126, the
relevant observations made in paras-4 and 5. Recently, the Division
Bench of this Court in case of Dharmsinh Desai University vs.
Natubhai Kantibhai Raval and Ors., reported in [2023] 3 GLR
1783, referring and relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court has awarded lumpsum compensation in lieu of other
reliefs and therefore, considering the aforesaid decisions of the
Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, I am of the opinion that it
would be just and proper if, an amount of Rs.1 Lac is awarded as
lumpsum compensation.


9.          In the result, the present petition is partly allowed. The
impugned judgment and award dated 04.03.2023 passed by the
learned Presiding O昀케cer, Labour Court, Valsad in Reference (LCV) No.
16 of 2006 is hereby modi昀椀ed accordingly. An amount of Rs.1 Lac as
lump sum compensation shall be paid to the petitioner-workman by
the employer after proper veri昀椀cation of the identity and bank details
through RTGS, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of the writ of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
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 05/02/2026 17:39:34

                                                    Page 8 of 8