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, p. 2 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 p. 3 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 p. 4 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 p. 6 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 p. 7 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 p. 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