IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8922 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ========================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No No ========================================== GUJARAT PIPAVAV PORT LIMITED Versus RAJESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI MEHTA ========================================== Appearance: MR DEVANG J JOSHI(5345) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR RAJESH P MANKAD(2637) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 03/02/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. RULE. Mr.Mankad, learned counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. 2. Present petition is 昀椀led by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) for the following prayers:- (A) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate p. 2 writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside dated 26.04.2024 passed in IA No. 1 of 2020, Exhibit 141 in Reference (T) No. 37 of 2003 by Labour Court, Amreli. (B) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction permitting the Petitioner Company to adduce additional evidence in support of charges and punishment imposed by it as per the law. (C) That pending the hearing and 昀椀nal disposal of this petition, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of order dated 26.04.2024 passed in IA No. 1 of 2020, Exhibit 0 141 in Reference (T) No. 37 of 2003 by Labour Court, Amreli. (D) For ad interim relief in terms of para (A) above; (E) For such other and further reliefs. 3. The brief facts of this petition are in nutshell that the petitioner – company had employed the respondent – employee as compounder, who was served with the charge-sheet on 29.10.2002. That after considering the reply dated 01.11.2002 昀椀led by the respondent, the departmental inquiry was proceeded further and Inquiry O昀케cer has submitted the report on 12.12.2002 whereby it was found that charges No.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are substantially proved whereas charge No.5 is not proved. On the basis of the same, the disciplinary authority terminated the service of the respondent on 20.12.2002. 3.1 It is contended that the respondent approached the appropriate Government and raised dispute for the same, which came to be referred for adjudication by the concerned authority and it was registered as Reference (T) No. 37 of 2003. On 09.12.2003, the respondent 昀椀led his statement of claim and the same was replied by the present petitioner on 12.04.2004 and on 13.10.2006, the p. 3 reference was dismissed for want of prosecution, which came to be published on 18.11.2006. It is contended that the respondent had preferred Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2006 for restoration of the main reference which was also rejected on 15.10.2007 and, therefore, the respondent had preferred Special Civil Application No. 28278 of 2007 before this Court seeking to restore the main reference, which was allowed and remanded back the matter vide order dated 05.08.2019. On remand of the matter, the Labour Court proceeded further and departmental inquiry was challenged by the respondent seeking to frame the preliminary issue with regard to the legality and validity of the inquiry by 昀椀ling application at Exhibit 19 on 23.12.2019. It is further contended that the said application at Exhibit 19 was allowed by the Labour Court and framed preliminary issue with regard to legality and validity of the disciplinary inquiry. The respondent had submitted certain documents below Exhibit 18 along with the application at Exhibit 19 and vide Exhibit 22, the respondent did not want to adduce evidence / oral evidence in support of the preliminary issue with regard to the legality and validity of the disciplinary inquiry. The petitioner had submitted an application to produce evidence dated 28.02.2020 below Exhibit 24 and ultimately the Labour Court passed further order on 04.11.2023 discarding the oral evidence of the petitioner except for the purpose of the back wages. 3.2 It is contended that in earlier round of litigation, the order passed below Exhibit 19 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 21850 of 2023 wherein this Court had issued notice on 01.01.2024. In the meantime, the Labour Court passed an order on 26.02.2024 in I.A. No. 1 of 2020 (Exhibit 141) in Reference (T) No. 37 of 2003 holding the disciplinary p. 4 inquiry conducted by the petitioner as illegal and invalid and in violation of principle of natural justice. The Labour Court had also ordered to reinstate the respondent and ordered proceedings to continue to adjudicate the issue of back wages. 3.3 Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the Labour Court in I.A. No. 1 of 2020, Exhibit 141 in Reference (T) No. 37 of 2003, the present petition is preferred. 4. Heard Mr.Devang Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Rajesh Mankad, learned counsel for the respondent at length. Perused the materials placed on record. 5. Mr.Devang Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of the petition and has submitted that the respondent had preferred an interim application, which was allowed by the Labour Court declaring the disciplinary inquiry as illegal and invalid and against the principle of natural justice and at the same time without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. He has submitted that by deciding the preliminary issue with regard to the legality and validity of the departmental inquiry, the Labour Court, instead of granting the opportunity to lead the evidence to justify the charge, has passed an order directing to reinstate the respondent and the matter was kept for further arguments with regard to the issue of back wages. He has submitted that the matter was kept for adducing the evidence to prove the charge against the respondent, but before providing an opportunity, the Labour Court has adjudicated the dispute and directed to reinstate the respondent which is unjust, illegal and against the settled principles. He has submitted that the impugned p. 5 order passed by the Labour Court is illegal, unjust and against the settled principles of law and, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. 5.1 In support of his submissions, Mr.Joshi, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cooper Engineering Limited Vs. P.P.Mundhe reported in (1975) 2 SCC 661 and in the case of M.L.Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank reported in (2018) 18 SCC 21 more particularly paragraphs No.20, 21 and 22 which reads as under:- “20. If the Labour Court had come to a conclusion that the domestic enquiry is illegal because it was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice thereby causing prejudice to the rights of the employee, respondent No.1- Bank was under legal obligation to prove the misconduct (charges) alleged against the appellant (employee) before the Labour Court provided he had sought such opportunity to prove the charges on merits. 21. The Labour Court was then under legal obligation to give such opportunity and then decide the question as to whether respondent No.1-Bank was able to prove the charges against the appellant on merits or not. 22. If the charges against the appellant were held proved, the next question to be examined was in relation to the proportionality of the punishment given to the appellant. If the charges against the appellant were held not proved, the appellant was entitled to claim reinstatement with back wages either full or partial depending upon the case made out by the parties on the issue of back wages.” 6. On the other hand, Mr.Rajesh Mankad, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that let the matter be remanded back to the concerned Labour Court to decide the preliminary issue 昀椀rst and after giving an opportunity to both the sides for leading evidence and p. 6 then appropriate order be passed on merits. He has submitted that the Court may pass appropriate order. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the matter deserves to be allowed and the impugned award deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded back to the concerned Labour Court for deciding afresh. 8. In the result, the present petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed below Exhibit 141 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court for deciding the preliminary issue 昀椀rst and the Labour Court shall decide the same in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties as expeditiously as possible preferably as the issue is pending since 2003. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 9. It is open for the parties to raise all the contentions before the concerned Court available under the law. It is also observed that the parties shall cooperate with the proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. 10. Direct service is permitted. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL