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. p. 2 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 p. 3 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 p. 4 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 p. 5 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