Gujarat High Court
Krunalkumar Madhusudhan Golwala vs Glenmark Generics Ltd on 24 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3291/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3291 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
yes
==========================================================
KRUNALKUMAR MADHUSUDHAN GOLWALA
Versus
GLENMARK GENERICS LTD.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KAMLESH P VAIDANKAR(10135) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NILU K VAIDANKAR(8382) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA DAVDA, AGP for the Respondent-State
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 24/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference (LCB) No.75 of 2015 dated 15.04.2019, whereby the Reference filed by the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the I.D.Act' referred hereinafter).
2 It is the case of the petitioner before the learned Reference Court that he was working as a Store Officer in the Warehouse Department since 23.03.2008, drawing a monthly salary of Rs.25,000/-, and that he was discharging duties falling within the Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 21:45:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3291/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined ambit of a "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, without any authority or powers vested in the managerial cadre. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent- management levelled false and fabricated allegations against him with regard to the theft of silver nitrate, allegedly recovered from his car, and on that basis, he was terminated from service on 30.01.2013 without holding any departmental inquiry. The petitioner therefore raised an industrial dispute seeking a declaration that his termination was illegal, together with the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. The said dispute was referred for adjudication before the learned Labour Court, Bharuch, by framing the terms of reference as to whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement on his original post with continuity of service and back wages. The respondent-management appeared before the learned Labour Court and raised a preliminary contention challenging the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that the petitioner did not fall within the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act, contending further that he was working in a managerial cadre and was involved in the act of theft of silver nitrate, which constituted misconduct, and therefore his services were rightly terminated Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 21:45:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3291/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined forthwith. In support of his case, the petitioner examined himself at Exhibit 50 and produced the statement of claim at Exhibit 8, but did not lead any further evidence. On the other hand, the respondent- management examined three witnesses, namely, Mr. Vipin Kumar (Exh. 26) and Mr. Rajeshbhai Shah (Exh.
31), employees of the respondent-company, and Mr. Vinay Shah (Exh. 33), an employee of Dinesh Mill, where the petitioner allegedly obtained employment after his termination. The respondent-management also placed documentary evidence on record, including the log sheet, job profile of the petitioner, and a certificate regarding his appointment and salary in Dinesh Mill. After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, the learned Labour Court rejected the Reference, which is now the subject matter of challenge in the present petition before this Court.
3 Heard the learned advocate Mr.P.C.Chaudhary for the petitioner and the learned advocate Mr. Vaidankar for the respondent No.1.
4 Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary submits that the learned Reference Court has committed an error in dismissing the Reference on the preliminary ground that the petitioner did not fall within the definition of "workman." He submits that from the evidence Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 21:45:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3291/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined adduced by the respondent-company itself, it was established that the petitioner was not serving in any managerial or supervisory cadre but was working as a Store Officer, which falls within the purview of "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary further submits that two witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent in support of their defence failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the petitioner was not a workman. The log sheet, which was produced to suggest that the petitioner had signed in the capacity of a supervisor, was also not proved, as the petitioner denied the said signature during his cross- examination.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary has relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court rendered in the case of Lenin Kumar Ray;Management, M/s Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. vs. M/s. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd; Lenin Kumar Ray, reported in (2024) 12 SCALE 538, as well as the decision of this Court in Mayank Desai vs. Sayaji Iron & Egg. Co. Ltd. And Anr, reported in 2011-IV-LLJ 452 (Guj), and submitted that the learned Reference Court has committed an error in holding that the petitioner was working in a supervisory cadre and therefore did not fall under Section 2(s) Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 21:45:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3291/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined of the I.D. Act. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary further submits that the termination of the petitioner was not a simple termination but a stigmatic one, as it was based on an allegation of theft. However, no departmental inquiry was held, nor were the principles of natural justice followed. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary points out that the basis of the said allegation was the criminal case, in which the petitioner ultimately came to be acquitted. Therefore, in the absence of any material to prove misconduct, the Reference ought not to have been rejected.
4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary has further relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Natvarbhai S. Makwana vs. Union Bank of India and others, reported in 1985 LAB I.C. 422, and submitted that even if there is any alleged confession by the petitioner, unless the charges are proved in a duly conducted departmental inquiry, the petitioner cannot be held guilty of misconduct. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary further submits that during the cross- examination of the witnesses examined by the respondent-company, it was admitted that the petitioner was not performing any duties of managerial or supervisory nature. Learned Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 21:45:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3291/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined advocate Mr. Chaudhary therefore submits that the learned Reference Court failed to examine the case on merits and rejected the Reference only on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, and hence, the impugned award is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be allowed.
5 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Vaidankar, appearing for the respondent-management, submits that when the petitioner has asserted in the statement of claim that he falls within the definition of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, and the said assertion was specifically disputed by the respondent in the written statement, the burden squarely lay upon the petitioner to prove his case by adducing cogent evidence, either documentary or oral. Learned advocate Mr. Vaidankar submits that, admittedly, except for his own testimony, the petitioner has not adduced any further evidence to establish that he was a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s). On the contrary, the respondent-management has led evidence by examining two witnesses and producing documentary material before the learned Labour Court, in support of the contention that the petitioner is excluded from the definition of "workman."
Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 21:45:51 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3291/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined 5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Vaidankar further submits that since the learned Labour Court has dismissed the Reference at the threshold on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, it was beyond the scope of the Court to examine the case on merits. Even otherwise, it is submitted that the petitioner was found guilty of theft of silver nitrate, and once the employer has lost confidence in the employee, there is no requirement of holding a departmental inquiry, particularly when the petitioner himself has admitted his guilt by way of confession letters on various dates. Learned advocate Mr. Vaidankar has relied upon the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of Lenin Kumar Ray (supra) to contend that even though the petitioner has been acquitted by the criminal Court, in the absence of an "honourable acquittal," he cannot claim reinstatement or consequential benefits such as back wages.
5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Vaidankar submits that after a meticulous appreciation of the evidence placed on record, both oral and documentary, the learned Labour Court has rightly dismissed the Reference. Therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, and the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 21:45:51 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3291/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined 6 Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and upon referring to the reasons assigned by the learned Reference Court while rejecting the Reference filed by the petitioner, it emerges as an undisputed fact that the petitioner had filed a statement of claim contending that he was initially appointed as a Store Officer in the year 2008 and was subsequently promoted as an Officer. The respondent-Management filed its written statement disputing the petitioner's status as a "workman." Thereafter, except for examining himself at Exhibit 50, the petitioner did not lead any other oral or documentary evidence to establish that he fell within the ambit of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act.
6.1 On perusal of the petitioner's own deposition at Exhibit 50, it appears that he admitted that, upon joining the respondent-company, he was appointed as a Store Supervisor, later promoted as a Junior Officer, and was drawing monthly wages exceeding ₹25,000/-. During cross-examination, the logbook was shown to the petitioner wherein, though he denied the signature in the column "checked by," the respondent placed specimen signatures on record, which were not specifically denied by the petitioner. It is a settled proposition Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 21:45:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3291/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined of law that the burden to establish that one is a "workman" lies upon the claimant himself, which can only be discharged through cogent oral or documentary evidence. In the absence of the petitioner discharging such burden, it cannot be said that he proved his case of being a "workman."
6.2 On the other hand, the respondent- Management examined two witnesses. Mr. Bipin Kumar, Deputy Manager, was examined at Exhibit
26. In his chief examination, he deposed that the petitioner was working as an Officer (Store) and was heading the dispensing department, which was catering to the production department. He described the petitioner's duties, which included updating dispensing records in the computer, maintaining the dispensing logbook, ensuring hygienic conditions of the area as per GMP guidelines, and supervising two junior employees, namely, Mr. Avinash B. Patel and Mr. Rajesh L. Patel. The witness further deposed that approximately 1000 to 1200 types of raw materials were lying under the petitioner's control, supervision, and dispensing, and no prior permission or instructions were required for sending such materials to the production department. According to this witness, the Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 21:45:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3291/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined petitioner was empowered to grant or refuse leave applications of his subordinates, to recommend disciplinary action against them to the HR Department, and to change their duty shifts. In support of these averments, copies of the dispensing logbook were produced at Exhibit 17/2 and 17/3, wherein the dispensing work done by Mr. A.B. Patel was shown under the supervision of the petitioner and duly checked by him. In cross- examination, the witness admitted that the petitioner was working independently, except in cases of difficulty where he used to seek guidance from the witness. However, he also admitted that, with regard to supervision of junior employees, no independent evidence was produced.
6.3 Another witness, Mr. Rajeshbhai Shah, Manager of the respondent-company, was examined at Exhibit 32. His evidence was substantially similar to that of the earlier witness, reiterating that the petitioner was functioning in a supervisory/managerial capacity and, therefore, stood excluded from the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act.
7 The job profile which is produced by the respondent suggests following things:
Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 21:45:51 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3291/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined "Functional Area of Work Experience:
Receipts:
(1) To look after physical receipts of raw material & packing material.
(2) To prepare a raw material check list & tanker unloading check list.
(3) To unload the tanker of solvent & acid. (4) To prepare GRN for raw material & packing material.
(5) Arranging material from Quarantine area to Approved material after QC release. (6) To issue material to production as per FEFO SYSTEM against Production Order. (7) Monthly reconciliation of Raw Material & Packing Materials.
RM/PM ISSUES TO PRODUCTION:
(1) Issue Raw Material and packing material to production as per CGMP.
(2) To do issue entry in to system & All PM, RM & Finished Goods are entry in SAP System. (3) I am working as daily basic to dispatched finished goods to day to day basic as per HO instruction. (4) Informing HOD for low stock material. (5) To work in SAP SYSTEM (GRN & Issue entries). (6) To maintain GMP related record (Balance performance record, Temp & Humidity Sampling & Dispensing log book ETC).
(7) Preparation of purchase Requisition in SAP SYSTEM.
(8) Follow up with QC Dept. for approval of critical Raw material & Packing material. (9) Follow up with QC Dept. for Sample of critical Raw material & Packing material. (10) Follow up with purchase dept. for purchase order Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 21:45:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3291/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined and other requirements.
(11) Preparation for various customers adult/visit in Ware House.
SAP EXPOSURE:
(1) Exposure of SAP in mm module.
(2) Preparing Goods receipts note in SAP after Physical Verification of each consignment. (3) Issue of Raw material & Packing material against production order.
(4) Printing of consignment card through SAP. (5) Capturing Venvat through SAP. (6) Printing of Quarantine Awaiting GRN. (7) Printing of Under test Lable.
(8) Printing of Dispensing Lable. (9) All finished goods are entry in SAP System.
Experience .
(1) Worked with ANKUR AGENCY & Gleamark Generics Ltd Store Assistant and Computer Operating from 1st March 2006 to 19th March 2014.
(2) Worked with AgroPack (syngenta india limited), GIDC Ankleshwar as a Store Officer."
8 The learned Court, after considering the aforesaid evidence, has opined that the petitioner failed to establish his case of being a "workman," whereas the respondent succeeded in adducing ample material suggesting that the petitioner was not performing work of a skilled, unskilled, manual, or clerical nature. The judgments relied upon by the learned advocates Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 21:45:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3291/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined in support of the contention that the petitioner was a workman were found to be on different facts and, therefore, not applicable to the present case. On the contrary, reliance placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Lenin Kumar Ray; Management, M/s. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. v. M/s. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd., reported in (2024) AIR SC 5409, fortifies the conclusion of the learned Court, wherein it has been held that, in the absence of cogent evidence before the Labour Court, the concerned employee cannot be treated as a workman. Hence, the said authority does not advance the case of the present petitioner in any manner.
9 So far as the other contention with regard to non-
conduct of departmental inquiry is concerned, the same would remain only an academic issue, inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to satisfy the Court with regard to the requirement of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. Even otherwise, upon examining the nature of the evidence placed on record, more particularly the confessional statements produced at Exhibits 80 and 90, it emerges that the petitioner has admitted his signature thereon, though he attempted to contend that such confession was obtained under coercion by assault with a stick. However, Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 21:45:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3291/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined admittedly, no complaint of ill-treatment or coercion was ever lodged by the petitioner. In such circumstances, when the petitioner has himself admitted his guilt, as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Viveka Nand Sethi vs. Chairman, J & K Bank Ltd., and others, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 337, even in the absence of a formal departmental inquiry, the services of the petitioner could be terminated, since the issue primarily relates to the trust, confidence and faith of the employer in the employee. The observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Viveka Nand Sethi (supra) are referred to, which read as under:
"22. The principle of natural justice, it is trite, is no unruly horse. When facts are admitted, an enquiry would be an empty formality. Even the principle of estoppel will apply. [See Gurjeewan Garewal (Dr.) v. Dr. Sumitra Dash.] The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It cannot be applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. (See State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh4 and Karnataka SRTC v. S.G. Kotturappas.)"
10 In addition to the confessional statements, the Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 21:45:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3291/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined respondent examined two witnesses whose evidence established that the petitioner had committed theft of silver nitrate. In connection with the said incident, an FIR came to be registered before the Ankleshwar G.I.D.C. Police Station being C.R. No. 07 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 381 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The said FIR culminated into a criminal case, which ultimately ended in acquittal by judgment and order dated 06.05.2019 passed by the competent criminal Court. On perusal of the said order, it emerges that the acquittal was recorded on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove recovery and discovery beyond reasonable doubt, and further, that the confession of the petitioner was discarded being inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Accordingly, the criminal Court extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the petitioner.
11 In the opinion of this Court, the said judgment cannot be treated as an "honourable acquittal," and, in that background, no benefit of the same can be extended to the present petitioner.
12 One more aspect that requires consideration is that, while filing the Reference before the learned Reference Court, the petitioner had sworn an Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 21:45:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3291/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined affidavit on 05.07.2018, stating that he was unemployed and without any source of income. However, during cross-examination, the respondent produced the petitioner's HDFC Bank account statement and questioned him regarding the amounts credited therein. The petitioner claimed that the amounts were income from tuition. The respondent, however, adduced evidence to the contrary, including the appointment order issued by Shri Dinesh Mill and by examining the witness Mr. Vinay Shah (Exhibit 33), along with the petitioner's job biodata. The evidence established that the petitioner had been employed at Dinesh Mill and had attempted to suppress this fact before the learned Labour Court, thereby concealing his prior employment experience with the respondent company.
13 Considering the overall circumstances and the conduct of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the petition, being devoid of merits, does not require to be entertained.
14 Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 21:45:51 IST 2025