IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17668 of 2024 ========================================================== RAJESHBHAI TAPUBHAI Versus CHIEF OFFICER & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MS NEHA C SHUKLA(6172) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS SWEETY SAMARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 19/02/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has preferred present petition under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the order dated 26.12.2023 passed by the Labour Court in Reference/T/LC No. 190 of 2015 whereby the Labour Court has rejected the reference of the workman. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief/s:- "16 (a) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition; (b) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside award dated 26.12.2023 (ANNEXURE-A) passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in p. 2 Reference/T/LC No.190/2015. (c) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with continuity of service and full backwages. (d) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other order or orders as may be deemed 3t under the circumstances of the present case." 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Sweeper in the Sanitation Department of respondent No.1 in the year 1984 and had been continuously working since then. According to him, on 01.06.2015 his services came to be terminated without following due procedure and without assigning any reason. While the petitioner was in service, he met with an accident on 18.05.2014 during the course of employment, as a result of which one of the toes adjacent to the left big toe was amputated. 3.1 On the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which came to be registered as Reference (T) LC No.190 of 2015 before the Labour Court, Surendranagar. 3.2 In the said reference, the respondent 5led its written statement at Exhibit 11. It was contended by the respondent that the petitioner had also 5led proceedings under the Workmen’s Compensation Act being Workmen’s Compensation (Non-Fatal) Case No.3 of 2015. It was pointed out that in the said compensation proceedings the petitioner had mentioned the date of p. 3 accident as 18.05.2014, whereas in the reference proceedings he stated that he sustained injury on 18.11.2014 while on duty. According to the respondent, there was inconsistency regarding the date of accident and therefore the petitioner had not stated true and correct facts before the Labour Court. 3.3 The respondent further stated that the petitioner was referred to the Referral Hospital, Chotila, where he remained as an indoor patient and was treated. A 5tness certi5cate was issued by the Referral Hospital on 01.12.2014. According to the respondent, despite issuance of the 5tness certi5cate on 01.12.2014, the petitioner did not resume duty. It was further stated that on 01.01.2015 the petitioner submitted an application requesting that the period from 08.11.2014 to 01.12.2014 be treated as medical leave. On these facts, the respondent denied that the petitioner was terminated on 01.06.2015 and contended that the allegation of termination was contrary to the record. 3.4 The Labour Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence on record and recording its reasons in paragraph 13 of the award, rejected the reference of the petitioner. 3.5 Being aggrieved and dissatis5ed with that, the impugned order passed by the Labour Court, petitioner p. 4 5led this petition 4. Heard Ms. Neha C. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanchela, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Ms.Sweety Samara, learned AGP for the respondent No.2. 5. Ms. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Labour Court passed the impugned award without properly appreciating the material facts of the case. She has that the petitioner had sustained an injury during the course of his duty and was advised to take rest, due to which he could not resume work. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this crucial aspect was not considered by the Labour Court, and therefore the impugned award is erroneous, illegal and unjust, and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5.1 Ms. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had been working since 1984 and had rendered more than 25 years of continuous service. However, on 01.06.2015, his services were terminated by the respondent without complying with the mandatory provisions of Sections 2(oo), 25F and 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. She has submitted that the termination amounts to illegal retrenchment and the observation of the Labour Court that the petitioner failed to establish illegal termination was assailed as being p. 5 contrary to the record and therefore, liable to be set aside. 5.2 Over and above the contention / ground raised in the memo of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner urges before the Court that petition may be allowed and the impugned judgment and order may be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Sweety Samara, learned AGP for respondent No.2 and Mr. Sanchela, learned counsel for respondent No.1, opposed the petition and submitted that the Labour Court, after appreciating the pleadings and oral evidence on record, rightly dismissed the reference. It was contended that the petitioner had not stated true and correct facts either in his statement of claim or in his oral evidence. In fact, during his cross- examination, the petitioner admitted that he had not resumed duty and had abandoned the job on his own. It was therefore submitted that there was no termination by the employer and consequently no question of retrenchment. According to the learned AGP and learned counsel for the respondents, the impugned award does not su@er from any in5rmity or illegality and does not warrant interference. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the p. 6 learned advocates for the respective parties. I have also perused the material on record, including the impugned order and the proceedings before the Labour Court. 8. On perusal of the reasoning recorded by the Labour Court, particularly from paragraph 10 onwards, it emerges that there was a material discrepancy regarding the date of the alleged accident. Before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, the petitioner stated that he had sustained the injury on 18.11.2014, whereas before the Labour Court he stated that the accident occurred on 18.05.2014. The petitioner failed to satisfactorily explain this inconsistency. Such contradiction goes to the root of the matter and a@ects the credibility of his case. 9. Further, in his oral evidence, the petitioner admitted that he had not resumed duty after the accident. The Labour Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had abandoned the service and that there was no positive act of termination on the part of the employer. In absence of proof of termination, the question of retrenchment under Section 2(oo) and compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act does not arise. 10. The Labour Court has also recorded a clear 5nding that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of p. 7 proving illegal termination by leading cogent and reliable evidence. The 5ndings are based on appreciation of evidence and do not appear to be perverse or contrary to the record. While exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not act as an appellate authority to reappreciate evidence. Interference is warranted only in cases of patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, no such in5rmity is made out. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, the petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The impugned award dated 26.12.2023 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (T) LC No.190 of 2015 is hereby con5rmed. Notice stands discharged. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI