IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9044 of 2025 ============================================================== SHRI RAJA NARAYAN PITTIE AYURVEDIK HOSPITAL Versus SANGEETABEN MADHUKAR THORAT ============================================================== Appearance: MR NISARG DESAI FOR GANDHI LAW ASSOCIATES(12275) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR DARSHIT D THAKKAR(12434) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ============================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 20/02/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Present petition is led by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) seeking following reliefs: “a. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash and set aside the Impugned Orders dated 19.05.2025 passed by Labour Court, Vadodara below Exh. 11 and 14 in Reference (TLC) No. 48 of 2020. b. Pending admission, hearing and 0nal disposal of this Petition, your Lordships may be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the Impugned Orders dated 19.05.2025 passed by Labour Court, Vadodara below Exh. 11 and 14 in Reference (TLC) No. 48 of 2020 as well as stay on the Reference proceedings being Reference (TLC) No. 48 of 2020; c. An ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer (b) above may be granted; and d. Grant such other and further relief(s) as may be deemed 0t p. 1 in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the respondent was working as Honorary Laboratory Technician with the petitioner-Hospital since December, 1989 and he was paid monthly wages as per applicable minimum wages. That, the respondent was terminated from services in July, 2019 by the petitioner. Consequently, the respondent challenged her termination by way of an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Vadodara. However, upon failure of conciliation, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Vadodara for adjudication being Reference (TLC) No. 48 of 2020. That, upon receiving summons from the Labour Court, the petitioner had led an application at Exh. 12 seeking an adjournment to le Vakalatnama and to peruse papers with list of documents as led by respondent and to prepare and le a Written Statement in response to the Statement of Claim before the Labour Court. That, the petitioner had also led an application at Exh.13 seeking permission of the Labour Court to be represented by an advocate under Section 36(4) of ID Act in reference proceedings. However, the Labour Court passed impugned order dated 19.05.2025 whereby it has rejected the application of the petitioner to le vakalatnama of its advocate and endorsed that the vakalatnama may not be recorded in the proceeding on behalf of petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner led an application at Exh. 14 praying to suspend the order and adjourn the matter for ling appropriate application before this Court to challenge the impugned order passed at Exh.11 application. The Labour Court vide order dated 19.05.2025 rejected the application at Exh 14. p. 2 3. Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned orders dated 19.05.2025 passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 4. Heard Mr. Nisarg Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Darshit Thakkar, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials available on record. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Desai has submitted that the impugned orders 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, is required to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the impugned order not permitting the petitioner to represent itself before the Labour Court through an advocate and further rejecting the production of vakalatnama is contrary to the object of section 36(4) of the Act. He has submitted that the representation of the petitioner before the Labour Court requires legal expertise considering that the questions involved in the reference are complex legal issues relating to the Act and since the petitioner has no legal knowledge of the court procedure, the petitioner will not be in a position to represent its case e?ectively in absence of an advocate. On the contrary, the respondent is being represented by Union Gujarat Mazdoor Sena which is a Union and has legal expertise. He has submitted that the impugned order in Exh.14 rejecting the adjournment application and refusing to stay/suspend the order passed earlier is illegal since it deprives the petitioner to avail the remedy of challenging the order passed below Exh.11 before this Court. Over and above the p. 3 grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr. Desai has urged that the impugned judgment and orders passed by the Labour Court are required to be quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed. 6. As against that, learned counsel Mr. Thakkar, appearing for the respondent-workman, has opposed the present petition and submitted that there is no any in rmity or any illegality in the impugned judgment and orders passed by the Labour Court and therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the present petition. He has submitted that the impugned judgment and orders passed by the Labour Court is in consonance with the settled principles of law and is passed after following due procedure and therefore, the same is required to be con rmed and the present petition is required to be dismissed and no interference is required to be called for while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also considered the impugned judgment and orders passed by the Labour Court. It appears from the record that the Labour Court passed the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner to represent its case through an advocate only on the ground that since last ve years the matter was pending before the Labour Court and neither the petitioner nor its legal representatives remained present before the Labour Court. Considering the facts of the case, it is desirable to impose cost of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be paid to the respondent within four weeks from today with an undertaking that the petitioner may p. 4 not further delay the proceedings. This Court is of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the matter is required to be remanded back to the concerned Labour Court for deciding the issue afresh. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Labour Court below Exh. 11 and Exh. 14 are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court, Vadodara. The aforesaid Reference is restored to its original le. The Labour Court, Vadodara shall decide the aforesaid Reference afresh in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order, considering the fact that the Reference is of the year 2020 after giving proper opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. It is also noted that the representatives of the petitioner and respondent will cooperate to the proceedings pending before the Labour Court without seeking any unnecessary adjournment. The petitioner is permitted to be represented through an advocate before the Labour Court. The amount of cost shall be paid to the respondent within time bound period. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) ANUSRI p. 5 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ANUSRI VASU(HC02352), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/02/2026 17:44:59