RAYSINGBHAI CHHATRASINH PARMARversusTHE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, IOC LIMITED

     C/SCA/17755/2023                              JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17755 of 2023

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

             Approved for Reporting               Yes          No

================================================================
                    RAYSINGBHAI CHHATRASINH PARMAR
                                  Versus
                THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, IOC LIMITED & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DAXESH D BAROT(13149) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MUNJAAL M BHATT(8283) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                              Date : 02/03/2026

                                JUDGMENT


1.       RULE returnable forthwith. Learned counsel Mr. Munjaal Bhatt,
waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent
No.1.
         Though notice is served, none has !led appearance on behalf of
the respondent No.2.


2.       Present petition is !led by the petitioner-workman 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 05.10.2016 passed
by the learned Presiding O8cer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad
(hereinafter be referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Reference (CGITA) No.


                                  Page 1 of 5
     C/SCA/17755/2023                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




26 of 2006, whereby, the learned Tribunal has con!rmed the
termination of the petitioner by the respondent No.1 as legal, proper
and just.


3.       Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
petitioner was working with the respondent No. 1 as Helper Grade III
at P & U Department of Gujarat Re!nery, IOCL. That, the petitioner
was irregular in attending his duty and used to remain habitually
absent without leave from duty quite frequently. That, the petitioner
was warned several times to improve his attendance and to desist
from being absent from duty without leave, however, despite several
such warnings, there was no improvement in the conduct of the
petitioner and the petitioner continued to remain absent without any
prior sanction/approval of leave. That, in view of the persistent
absenteeism on the part of the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 issued
charge sheet on 09.01.2004 for his habitual absence under Clause 22
(xvii) of the Certi!ed Standing Orders as applicable to Gujarat
Re!nery,         recording   therein   that      the    petitioner      remained
unauthorisedly absent for 108 days, over a period of 9 months. That,
the petitioner did not however give any reason to the aforesaid
charge sheet and accordingly, enquiry was initiated to investigate into
the charges levelled against the petitioner. That, a total of four
sittings of the enquiry proceedings were held on 25.02.2004,
05.03.2004. 16.03.2004 and 19.03.2004, however, the petitioner
thereafter, participated in the proceedings of the enquiry proceedings
wherein, he was given full and fair opportunity to defend his case.
That, on culmination of the enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry O8cer
submitted his report !nding the petitioner guilty of charges levelled
against him under Clause 22 (XVII) of the Certi!ed Standing Orders.
That, the Disciplinary Authority after careful consideration of the


                                   Page 2 of 5
     C/SCA/17755/2023                           JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




enquiry report, the evidences and materials on record, agreed with
the !ndings of the Enquiry O8cer and taking into consideration the
gravity of misconduct and past records of the petitioner, awarded the
petitioner punishment of dismissal from services of the respondent
No. 1. That, thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal under his
letter dated 18.11.2004, whereby, the Appellate Authority after
careful examination of all the relevant documents and materials on
record, in connection with the domestic enquiry, after aCording an
opportunity of personal hearing on 15.02.2005, agreed with and
con!rmed the Disciplinary Authority's order and accordingly, disposed
of the appeal under order dated 06.05.2005. That, despite the above
factual and legal position, at the instance of the Union, the
proceedings were initiated before the learned Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central). That, the respondent No. 1 appeared in the
said proceedings and !led its submission on 08.06.2005 and
27.05.2005. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the
Presiding O8cer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad con!rmed the
termination of the petitioner as legal, proper and just vide its award
dated 05.10.2016.


4.       Being aggrieved and dissatis!ed with the impugned award
dated 05.10.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal in Reference
(CGITA) No. 26 of 2006, the petitioner has preferred this petition.


5.       Heard Mr. Daxesh Barot, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner-workman and Mr. Munjaal Bhatt, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent No.1 – IOCL.


6.       Learned counsel Mr. Barot has submitted that the impugned
award passed by the Tribunal is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous


                                  Page 3 of 5
     C/SCA/17755/2023                           JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




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 petitioner was not given proper
opportunity to represent his case and therefore, the valuable right of
the petitioner to defend his case against his illegal termination by the
respondent No.1 was infringed. He has further submitted that the
petitioner was not aware about passing of the impugned award as the
advocate who was appearing before the respondent No.2 expired. He
has further submitted that due to negligence of the Union and its
representatives, the petitioner cannot be punished. Over and above
the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr.
Barot has urged that the impugned award is required to be quashed
and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed.


7.       As against that, learned counsel Mr. Bhatt, appearing for the
respondent No.1, has objected the present petition and submitted
that there is no any in!rmity or any illegality in the impugned award
passed by the Tribunal and therefore, no interference is required to
be called for in the present petition. He has submitted that the
workman has remained unauthorizedly absent for 108 days, over a
period of 9 months and had not given any response to the charge
sheet issued by the respondent No.1. He has submitted that despite
giving ample opportunity to lead evidence, the petitioner had not
produced any evidence before the Tribunal and therefore, the
Tribunal has right passed the impugned award, which is in
consonance with the settled legal principles and therefore, the
present petition is required to 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


                                 Page 4 of 5
        C/SCA/17755/2023                                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




through the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. It appears from
the record that the Reference was !led in the year 2006 and it was
pending adjudication before the Tribunal upto 2016, and till date,
neither the petitioner had personally remained present nor any
advocate was engaged by the petitioner to represent his case before
the Tribunal and therefore, after considering long lapse of period of
about 10 years, the Tribunal had ultimately passed the award on
05.10.2016 con!rming the termination of the petitioner by the
respondent No.1 as legal, proper and just and, now, the petitioner has
appeared before this Court raising a ground that the concerned
advocate had passed away and therefore, the petitioner could not
know about the proceedings and could not remain present before the
Tribunal and therefore, the Tribunal has passed the ex parte award
without hearing the petitioner. In fact, looking to the death certi!cate
of the concerned advocate namely, Krishna Kurup, produced at page-
28 (Annexure-B) of the compilation, wherein, the date of death of the
advocate is recorded as 24.05.2017 and therefore, the ground stated
in the memo of petition by the petitioner is not true and correct and
thus, the reason stated by the Tribunal while dismissing the Reference
is in consonance with the settled legal principles. Considering all
these aspects, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present
petition and the present petition is required to be dismissed.


7.          In the result, the present petition being devoid of any merits
deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly, 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 09/03/2026 17:43:46
                                                    Page 5 of 5