Gujarat High Court
Prakshesh Stevanbhai Rajvadi vs Manager, Kohler India Corpo. Pvt. Ltd on 17 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2934 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PRAKSHESH STEVANBHAI RAJVADI
Versus
MANAGER, KOHLER INDIA CORPO. PVT. LTD.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DG SHUKLA(1998) assisted by MS.MESWA BHATT for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 17/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.D.G.Shukla with learned advocate Ms.Meswa Bhatt waive service of Rule on behalf of respondent.
2. The present petition is filed challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference LCB No.218 of 2016 dated 11.12.2018, Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined whereby learned Court has rejected the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement on the ground that the petitioner does not fall under the definition of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as he fails to establish that the resignation was forceful in nature.
3. As per the claim of the petitioner raised before the learned labour court he was appointed as a Diploma Engineer Trainee with the respondent establishment with effect from 01.06.2012. He received the increment on 01.06.2013 and he was promoted on the post of Supervisor on 01.06.2014. On 06.10.2015 he was forced to resign from the service by one Mr.Kiran Kulkarni- Manager HOD of the Maintenance Department and though there was a provision of two month's notice, he was not allowed to work from the next day. He withdrew his resignation on 02.12.2015 by sending the communication, however, the same was not replied, therefore, again on 14.12.2015 he sent a reminder which was replied by the respondent Management by intimating to the petitioner that his resignation has already been accepted therefore, he cannot be taken Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined back in the service. He claimed that without paying the retrenchment compensation and one month notice pay, his services were terminated in violation of section 25(f) of the I.D.Act by the respondent Management, therefore, claiming the reinstatement with full back wages, the reference came to be filed. The respondent Management appeared before the learned Reference Court and submitted that the petitioner, being a Supervisor, was not punctual in his service and was not following the instructions of his senior Officers. He used to quarrel with the co-employee and has issued threats to face the dire consequences. He was found negligent in discharging his duties and on 14.12.2014, along with his other subordinate staffs he was found to be sleeping during duty hours and for that the notice was issued on 10.01.2015. On tendering apology in writing accepting his misconduct, the Management has taken a lenient view. Thereafter, from 30.05.2015 to 05.10.2015 he remained absent without taking prior permission and on 06.10.2015 on resuming the duty he tendered his resignation on the ground that his uncle passed away and he has responsibility of his family, therefore, he Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined cannot continue in the service and thereafter, he left the premises. After two months of the date of resignation on 02.12.2015 he withdrew his resignation and on receiving the second reminder, the respondent replied that on 06.10.2015 the resignation which was tendered was already accepted and therefore, he cannot be reinstated. Learned Court, on considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, has passed judgment and award dismissing the reference filed by the present petitioner which is impugned before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Yogen Pandya with learned advocate Mr.Lamba for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Shukla with Ms.Meswa Bhatt. 4.1. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Lamba for the petitioner that learned Court has committed error in not appreciating the evidence to the effect that the Superior of the petitioner has forced him to resign by threatening him to cause harassment and as the petitioner does not have any other option except to sign the resignation, the same was considered as a voluntary resignation by the learned Labour Court. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Lamba that without framing Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined any issues with regard to the petitioner being a workman or not, the learned Court has given its finding that the petitioner being a Supervisor does not fall under the category of 'workman'. Learned advocate Mr.Lamba submits that petitioner worked in the Maintenance Department and as per the evidence of the witness of the respondent he used to do the work of repairing of the machine which does not fall under managerial or supervisory cadre. Learned advocate Mr.Lamba submits that he was forced by the Manager HOD to sign in the typed resignation and the petitioner has signed under force and coercion. The petitioner before acceptance of the resignation, which was tendered has already withdrawn the same, however, learned Court without considering the said material evidence has dismissed the reference filed by the present petitioner. Learned advocate Mr.Lamba submits that before the acceptance of the resignation and before settling the dues, the petitioner has the right to withdraw the resignation, however, due to the conspiracy hatched by the Management to remove the petitioner from the service, though notice pay or notice has not been given, neither Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined any acceptance letter was communicated, petitioner was informed to have been resigned from the service from 06.10.2015.
4.2. Learned advocate Mr.Lamba relies on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and And Weaving Mills Co.vs State Of U.P. And Ors reported in (1990) 4 SCC 27, Secy., Technical Education, U.P. & Ors vs Lalit Mohan Upadhyay reported in (2007) 4 SCC 492 and AIR India Express Ltd and Ors. Vs Captain Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu reported in (2019) 7 SCC 129 has submitted that before resignation becomes effective and accepted by the competent authority discontinuation of service would amount to termination and therefore the petitioner is entitled to the protection under section 25f of the ID Act. Learned advocate Mr.Lamba has relied on the decision rendered by the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Management of Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs M.B.Ramakrishna reported in 2000 LawSuit(Kar) 539 and submitted that once the resignation is accepted by the employer there will be cessation of the contract of employment Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined and the master and servant relationship comes to an end. To recognize the right of withdrawal of the resignation or the right of withdrawal of the acceptance of resignation would amount to coming into light the already extinguished contract. In view of the above, learned advocate Mr.Lamba has requested to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned award. 4.3. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Shukla assisted by learned advocate Ms.Meswa Bhatt submitted that petitioner was getting revised salary of Rs.17,998/- with effect from 01.06.2013 and on being promoted as supervisor in Maintenance Department he was paid Rs.20,797/- per month. The petitioner being appointed in front line leader cadre has to ensure the over all smooth and effective function of department and would be responsible for successful and timely completion of work assigned to him. The hand written resignation was tendered mentioning the personal reasons for not continuing this job on 06.10.2015 and after two months from the said period the petitioner has addressed the communication on 02.12.2015 informing to take back the resignation. It is submitted by the learned advocate Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined that though it is contended that typed resignation was signed, however, the resignation was tendered in his own hand writing therefore, one cannot say that it was forceful resignation. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Shukla that at the time of resigning from the service he was serving in the cadre of supervisor and getting the wages more than ceiling limit mentioned in section 2(s) of the ID Act. Therefore, learned court is justified in holding that petitioner cannot be said to be workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the ID Act and it was held that learned court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the reference. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Shukla that with regard to the legal dues no contention is raised in any of the communication addressed to the respondent Management by the petitioner however, the claim was raised with regard to the retrenchment compensation in the statement of claim and therefore also learned Court was justified in holding that resignation which was tendered was not forceful resignation and on being accepted the petitioner does not has right to continue with the service. 4.4. Learned advocate Mr.Shukla relies on the decision Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Linen Kumar Ray; Managemenet, M/s Express Publication (Madurai) Ltd Vs M/s Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd; Lenin Kumar Ray reported in AIR 2024 SC 5409 and submitted that onus is on the petitioner to establish the claim of workman and in absence of the same no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner. By submitting the same learned advocate Mr.Shukla prays to the Court that this petition be dismissed and the impugned order be confirmed.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the respective parties and on referring the reasons assigned by the learned labour court, the two main issues arising for consideration is that whether the petitioner falls under the definition of section 2(s) of the ID Act and whether the resignation which was offered was forceful resignation and in absence of any formal acceptance, withdrawal of the resignation can be permitted or not. To decide the first issue, this Court has referred the evidence, more particularly, the appointment order of the petitioner dated 01.06.2012 wherein, it is stated that petitioner Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined was employed as Diploma Engineer Trainee with effect from 01.06.2012 as well as, as per the order dated 01.06.2014, where he was promoted as a Supervisor and he was paid the wages of Rs.20,797/-. Admittedly in the statement of claim, no averment with regard to the workman was made by the petitioner, neither in the written statement it is denied that the petitioner was not a workman. In that background, if one would examine the nature of work which reveals from the oral evidence of the witnesses, then as per the evidence of the respondent management who was examined below Exh.27, this witness admitted that work of the workman was to repair electric machine. He also admitted that he does not know whether the workman had power to grant leave to anyone or not. It is admitted by the witness that the workman had no authority to give notice to anyone, neither had any powers to initiate the departmental actions against any subordinate employees. The learned Court without framing issue with regard to the workman, has concluded the reference by assigning the reasons that as per the record the petitioner was not a workman but was a Supervisor and he enjoyed the Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined powers of supervision and was having authority over his subordinate technician. This Court fails to find any evidence which reveals the same aspect and basis for arriving to the conclusion that the petitioner was having the powers of supervisory nature.
5.1. Merely because the nomenclature of the petitioner's post was Supervisor and was receiving the wages of more than Rs.10,000/- i.e the ceiling limit would not automatically bring the status of the person as a Supervisor. To arrive at the findings whether the person is a workman or not even if he is designated as a Supervisor, the nature of the work performed is a relevant factor. If the nature of work suggests that petitioner is mainly doing the clerical work and discharging some duties of Supervisor occasionally, then that does not mean that the person is a Supervisor so as to take him away from the ambit of the workman defined under section 2(s) of the I.D.Act. At this stage, the reference of the definition of the workman provided under section 2(s) is required to be made, which is reproduced herein below:-
"2(s)[ "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person- [ Substituted by Act 46 of 1982, Section 2, for Cl. (s) (w.e.f. 21.8.1984).]
(i)who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii)who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or
(iii)who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(iv)who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.]"
6. By the general terms of the opening part of the above definition, workman means "any person employed in any industry to do supervisory or clerical work for higher or reward" This shows that because the work is supervisory, therefore, it does not necessarily follow that an employee is not a workman. Therefore, even if Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined workman doing a supervisory work still remains to be a workman within the definition of the term. The test would only be the duties which was primary, basic and dominant in nature for which the person whose status under the inquiry was employed. In absence of any issue and in absence of any dispute raised with regard to the workman, the learned court has committed error in holding that the petitioner does not fall under the ambit of section 2(s) of the ID Act.
6.1. The next question for consideration before this Court is whether the resignation is forceful and in absence of formal acceptance, at any time withdrawal of the said resignation can be permitted. So far as the contention of the forceful resignation is concerned, this Court has referred the resignation which is placed on record by the learned advocate for the petitioner and found that the resignation dated 06.10.2015 is in the handwriting of the petitioner himself. It is alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner was made to sign typed resignation forcebly by Mr.Kiran Kulkarni- Manager, HOD of the Maintenance Department. This submission is falsified from the resignation itself, as the same is found to be in Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined handwriting of the petitioner and to establish that Mr.Kulkarni has forced the petitioner to sign, the said Mr.Kulkarni was not examined by the petitioner. It is settled position of law that the burden lies on the workman to prove that the resignation is taken forcefully and to discharge that burden, evidence has to be proved by way of adducing either in oral or documentary evidence. In that background, this Court is of the view that learned Court has not committed any error in holding that resignation was given voluntarily and the petitioner himself has willingly signed the same. 6.2. With regard to the question that unless and until the formal acceptance of the resignation is given, it can be withdrawn at any time this Court has referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board and Ors Versus Brij Mohan Parihar reported in (2000) 9 SCC 269. The case before the Apex Court was that the respondent who was an employee of the Electricity Board had submitted his resignation on 10.10.1983 mentioning the effective dated from 26.11.1983 and the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench has recorded the Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined finding that as respondent offered himself for duty on 22.08.1987 and as the formal acceptance of the resignation have not been issued, the respondent was granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service. The Apex Court has held that when the resignation itself suggests the effective date and the employee absented from the duty from the said date, the conduct itself indicates that he treated himself to have resigned from the post which he was holding. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench was set aside. The case on hand Admittedly there is no rules framed by the management, fixing any timeline for acceptance of the resignation. On referring the resignation, it does not suggest any future date for acceptance of the same. Therefore, resignation shall have to be held to be a unilateral act requiring no acceptance and no further action is required to be taken for the resignation to be made effective. The resignation will be deemed to have taken effect from the date when the resignation was tendered and as statute does not provide any further action for acceptance of the resignation, in the opinion Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined of this Court, resignation would come into force immediately when it was tendered.
7. The present petitioner, who after tendering the resignation absented from the duty for around 60 days is sufficed to hold that intention of the petitioner was to get relieve from the duty with immediate effect. As an after thought, the communication was addressed on 02.12.2015 informing that he wants to withdraw the resignation. As no response was given by the Management therefore, again the communication was addressed on 14.12.2015 which was replied by the respondent-Management on 15.12.2015 stating that as "you have tendered the resignation on his own without any pressure or coercion, company has accepted your resignation and has relieved you from the duty". After this communication, the petitioner has further communication to the respondent-Management on 18.12.2015 with new story of forceful resignation. In the opinion of this Court when the contention of the forceful resignation has not been taken in the communication dated 02.12.2015 as well as in the communication dated 14.12.2015 and only after reply of the management that Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2934/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined it was given without any pressure or coercion, to get absolved from the resignation which was given willingly, the fabricated and concocted story was brought up by the petitioner.
8. This Court has referred the decision relied by the learned advocate Mr.Lamba for the petitioner which were on different facts wherein, the resignation was withdrawn within the notice period which was not the fact herein and in that background, this Court is of the view that the said decisions would not come to the rescue of the present petitioner. As the learned court has evaluated the evidence placed by both the parties and has given cogent and sufficient reasons to hold that resignation was tendered willingly, this Court does not deem it fit to interfere with the impugned award. Hence, this petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed.
9. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) ARCHANA S. PILLAI Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:35:53 IST 2025