Gujarat High Court
Apothecon Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Gujarat on 15 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9735/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9735 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
APOTHECON PHARMACEUTICAL PVT. LTD.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DG CHAUHAN(218) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
RONAK D CHAUHAN(7709) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS.DIXA PANDYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 15/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of reference dated 09.01.2020 passed by the Learned Labour Commissioner in Conciliation Case No. 339 of 2019, whereby the industrial dispute was referred to the Learned Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 03:43:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9735/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined present case are set out hereinbelow:
2.1. The Petitioner is a registered pharmaceutical company engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products, employing approximately 650 workmen.
Respondent No.2 raised an industrial dispute seeking, inter alia, confirmation of permanency in service from the initial date of appointment, entitlement to basic pay with fixed and variable dearness allowances, paid leave including privilege leave, casual leave, weekly offs, leave encashment, overtime wages, 20% bonus, as well as union-related benefits such as contribution and subscription. The said dispute was referred by respondent No.1 to respondent No.3, and was registered as Reference (IT) No. 12 of 2020, which forms the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.D.G.Chauhan for the petitioner.
3.1. Learned advocate Mr. Chauhan, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, has challenged the impugned order of reference primarily on the ground that, out of 61 workmen, the services of 27 individuals have already Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 03:43:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9735/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined been regularized and they are currently on the rolls of the Petitioner-Company. It is further submitted that 24 workmen have been terminated from service and have independently initiated reference proceedings seeking reinstatement along with back wages. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the workman mentioned at Serial No. 17, namely Ms. Ashaben Solanki, has resigned from the Union, and the workman listed at Serial No. 41 passed away on 15.05.2021, subsequent to the date of reference. Furthermore, it is contended that seven of the individuals referred to in the impugned reference are engaged through a labour contractor and, therefore, do not fall within the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in relation to the Petitioner-Company. Challenging the existence of an employer-employee relationship with such individuals, the present petition has been preferred by the Petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Chauhan submits that the Industrial Tribunal lacks jurisdiction under the Third Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to direct the regularization of services or to confer permanency upon the said workers. On this basis, it is Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 03:43:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9735/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined submitted that the impugned order of reference is without jurisdiction and is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. It is further contended that the status of the individuals as "workmen" is in dispute and, since they do not fall within the scope of Section 2(s) of the Act, the reference itself is vitiated and the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocate and upon perusal of the impugned order of reference, it emerges that the Learned Industrial Tribunal has been directed to adjudicate upon the demands raised by Respondent No. 2-Union, which pertain to (1) Regularization of services from the date of initial appointment; (2) Fitment into the appropriate basic pay scale; (3) Grant of Dearness Allowance; (4) Fixed Dearness Allowance; (5) Variable Dearness Allowance; (6) Leave with wages commencing from the calendar year 01.01.2019; (7) Privilege Leave; (8) Entitlement of workmen to accumulate up to 240 days of Privilege Leave; and (9) Issuance of Privilege Leave Cards as per the provisions of the Factories Act etc. The principal contention raised in challenge to the said Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 03:43:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9735/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined reference is that the Industrial Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of regularization of service, as such a dispute does not fall within the ambit of the Third Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This Court has accordingly considered the definition of "industrial dispute" as contemplated under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is referred hereinbelow:-
"Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines 'industrial dispute' as:
"any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non- employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person;""
4.1. The definition of "industrial dispute" under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can be analyzed in three distinct parts i.e. (1) there must be dispute or difference, (2) dispute or difference must be between the employer and employer or between employer and workman or between workman and workman, (3) dispute or difference must be connected with the employment or with the condition of labour, of Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 03:43:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9735/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined any person. The first component pertains to the existence of a real and substantive dispute. The second relates to the parties who are competent to raise such a dispute. The third concerns the subject matter of the dispute, which must relate either to the employment or non-employment, or to the terms of employment or conditions of labour, of any individual. With regard to the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal to decide the dispute of regularization, it would be appropriate to refer the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Petroleum Coal Labour Union, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 494, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-
"Whether jurisdiction of the Tribunal to direct the Corporation to regularise the services of the workmen concerned in the posts is valid and legal?
27. The Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 10 of the Act referred the existing industrial dispute between the workmen e concerned and the Corporation to the Tribunal which rightly adjudicated Point (i) of the dispute (supra) on the basis of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record and passed an award dated 26-5-1999 directing the Corporation that the services of the workmen concerned should be regularised with effect from the date on which all of them completed 480 days, subsequent to their appointment by the memorandum of f Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 03:43:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9735/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined appointment. The contention urged on behalf of the Corporation that the Tribunal has no power to pass such an award compelling the Corporation to regularise the services of the workmen concerned is wholly untenable in law. Even if we consider the same, the said contention is contrary to the legal principles laid down by this Court in Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corpn. of India, wherein the decisions in U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Bijli Mazdoor g Sangh and Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana and Umadevi (3)4 were discussed in detail."
4.2. In light of the aforementioned decision, the first submission advanced by the learned advocate that the Learned Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute concerning regularization of services is found to be untenable in law. Accordingly, the impugned order of reference cannot be set aside solely on that ground. With respect to the second contention raised by the learned advocate, namely, that certain workmen were terminated subsequent to the order of reference issued by the Learned Commissioner and that such termination is already the subject matter of separate references pending before the Learned Labour Court as well as the fact that some employees have either resigned or passed away thereafter, it is observed that Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 03:43:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9735/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined such individual circumstances can be adequately addressed by the Learned Tribunal during the course of adjudication. This Court has referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sarv Shramik Sangh v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2009) 11 SCC 609, wherein the Apex Court held as under:-
"29. It is true that making a reference under Section 10(1) of the ID Act is within the discretion of the appropriate Government. Referring to the unamended Section 10(1) of the ID Act this Court in State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy laid down the following principles:
(i) The Government should satisfy itself, on the facts and circumstances brought to its notice, in its subjective opinion that an "industrial dispute" exists or is "apprehended".
(ii) The factual existence of a dispute or its apprehension and the expediency of making reference are matters entirely for the Government to decide.
(iii) The order making a reference is an administrative act and it is not a judicial or a quasi-judicial act.
(iv) The order of reference passed by the Government cannot be examined by the High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to see if the Government had material before it to support the conclusion that the dispute existed or was apprehended."
5. In view of the foregoing and in light of the decision Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 03:43:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9735/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined referred to hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that, while exercising powers under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the role of the Appropriate Government is administrative in nature and not judicial or quasi-judicial. In exercising such administrative power, the Government is not competent to enter into the merits of the dispute or undertake a determination of disputed factual issues, as doing so would amount to exceeding the scope of authority conferred under Section 10 of the Act. Specifically, the question as to whether the person raising the dispute qualifies as a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Act cannot be decided by the Appropriate Government at the stage of making a reference under Section 10. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Apex Court in Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Bihar, reported in (1989) 3 SCC 271, wherein the Apex Court categorically held that the Government, while making a reference, is not to adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact such as the status of the workman. Accordingly, on this ground as well, the present petition is devoid of merit and deserves Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 03:43:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9735/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined to be dismissed
6. It is also pertinent to note that the impugned order of reference is dated 09.01.2020, whereas the present petition came to be instituted before this Court on 15.07.2025. It is evident that the Industrial Tribunal is already seized of the matter, and the adjudication proceedings are at an advanced stage. The present petition, filed after an inordinate delay of more than five years, appears to be an attempt to unnecessarily prolong and derail the adjudicatory process that had already commenced long before the filing of this petition and therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed with cost of Rs.25000/- which shall be deposited with the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. Upon such deposit, the Registry is directed to disburse the said amount in favour of Shishu Gruh, Paldi, Ahmedabad through electronic mode, without delay.
7. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed accordingly.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 03:43:28 IST 2025