Gujarat High Court
Tbea Energy India Pvt. Ltd vs Gujarat Engineering And General Kamdar ... on 16 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10400/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10400 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
TBEA ENERGY INDIA PVT. LTD.
Versus
GUJARAT ENGINEERING AND GENERAL KAMDAR UNION
==========================================================
Appearance:
SENIOR ADVOCATE MR.K.M.PATEL assisted by MR.VARUN
K.PATEL(3802) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY(1060) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 16/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Prabhakar Upadhyay waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent.
2. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference IT No.231 of 2021 dated 28.02.2025 directing Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 06:26:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10400/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined the present petitioner to consider 37 workmen working on fixed term contract as permanent with effect from 01.03.2025 and to pay them all legal benefits payable as a permanent workman.
3. The brief facts arising for consideration in the present petition are as follows:
3.1. The petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of transformers. Due to fluctuations in the volume of work orders and workload, in addition to employing permanent workmen, the petitioner company engaged certain employees on a fixed term contract (FTC) basis. Initially, 37 workmen were appointed as trainees, and upon completion of the training period, they were appointed on fixed term contracts for a period of two years. These contracts were subsequently renewed from time to time. A dispute was raised on behalf of the said 37 fixed term employees, challenging the legality of their appointments under fixed term contract (FTC) and seeking a declaration that they be treated as permanent employees from the date of their initial appointments.
The Commissioner of Labour, Gandhinagar, referred the Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 06:26:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10400/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined dispute to the Industrial Tribunal on 26.07.2021, which was registered as Reference (IT) No. 231 of 2021. During the pendency of the said reference, four of the fixed term contract (FTC) workmen resigned from service, and one additional workman was relieved upon the expiry of his fixed term contract (FTC) on 30.04.2020. The latter raised a separate industrial dispute seeking reinstatement, which was registered as Reference (LCV) No. 442 of 2020. In that matter, the learned Labour Court passed an award directing reinstatement with 20% back wages. The said award was challenged by the petitioner by filing Special Civil Application No. 13250 of 2023, which is currently pending adjudication before this Court. Interim relief was granted at the stage of issuance of notice. In the present reference, the Industrial Tribunal, by the impugned award, has directed that the concerned employees be granted the benefit of permanency with effect from 01.03.2025. The present petition has been filed challenging the said award.
4. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.K.M.Patel for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Prabhakar Upadhyay Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 06:26:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10400/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined for the respondent.
5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Patel submits that employment on a fixed term contract (FTC) basis is expressly recognized and statutorily incorporated within the Model Standing Orders applicable to the State of Gujarat through the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959 as amended by the Gujarat Amendment Rules, 2006. By way of the said amendment, Clause (dd) was introduced into Standing Order 3(2)(1), classifying "fixed term employment" as a distinct category of workmen. Further, Clause 3(2)(g) was amended to define the term "fixed term employment" in detail which is reproduced herein below:-
"(g) A fixed term employment' workman is workman who has engaged on the basis of contract of employment for a fixed period. However, his working hours, wages, allowance and other benefits shall not be less than that of a permanent workman. He shall also be eligible for all statutory benefits available to a permanent workman proportionately according to the period of employment does not extend to the qualifying period of employment required in the statue"
5.1. It is further submitted that the Central Government has also amended the Industrial Employment (Standing Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 06:26:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10400/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Orders) Rules, 1946 through the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central (Amendment) Rules, 2018, aligning them with the amendments carried out by the State of Gujarat. In view of the above, learned senior advocate Mr. Patel contends that the appointment of workmen on fixed term contract (FTC) basis is valid, legal, and within the employer's managerial prerogative, and thus not open to interference by the Industrial Tribunal. The appointments were made keeping in mind the fluctuating workload and operational requirements of the petitioner company. It is further submitted that the view taken by the learned Tribunal that the appointment of the workmen on fixed term contract (FTC) basis was without justifiable reasons is erroneous and unsustainable. The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to assess or interfere with the employer's decision regarding the classification and appointment of fixed term contract (FTC) employees, especially when such classification is recognized under the applicable statutory framework.
5.2. Moreover, learned senior advocate Mr. Patel submits that the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 06:26:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10400/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined committed an unfair labour practice under Item 10 of Part I of the Fifth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is misconceived. Item 10 pertains to acts such as the continued employment of workers as casuals, temporaries, or badlis with the intent to deprive them of permanent status. However, fixed term contract (FTC) workmen are not covered under this item. Hence, invoking Item 10 in the context of FTC employees is legally untenable. It is further argued that the provisions relating to unfair labour practices as found in Sections 2(r)(a), 25T, and 25U read with the Fifth Schedule were introduced through the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982, effective from 21.08.1984. However, the classification of fixed term contract (FTC) employees was incorporated subsequently through amendments to the standing orders, and therefore, Clause 10 of the Fifth Schedule has no applicability in the case of FTC appointments. Even otherwise, it is submitted that the essential preconditions for invoking Item 10 are not satisfied.
5.3. The workmen have been receiving wages, allowances, including Dearness Allowance, and other service Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 06:26:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10400/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined benefits on par with permanent employees. The amended Standing Orders explicitly mandate that fixed term contract (FTC) employees shall not be paid less than their permanent counterparts. There is no evidence or pleading from the workmen to establish that they were denied any benefit available to permanent employees. Accordingly, the contention that the petitioner employer appointed fixed term contract (FTC) workmen with the object of depriving them of the privileges and benefits of permanent workmen is without merit. The comparative table filed along with the written statement clearly reflects parity in wages and benefits between fixed term contract (FTC) and permanent workmen. Learned senior advocate Mr. Patel further submits that the mere fact that the workmen have completed 240 days of work in each calendar year does not by itself confer a right to permanency. The "240 days" criteria is relevant only for purposes of protection under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, and not for determining permanency. The Tribunal, while recording that the appointments were made under a recognized classification, erred in holding that fixed Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 06:26:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10400/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined term contract (FTC) appointments are permissible only for work which is seasonal, project-based, or of a temporary nature. It is submitted that the fixed term contract (FTC) appointments in the present case were made in respect of regular work, considering fluctuations in workload and business demands, and such appointments are legally permissible under the amended Standing Orders.
5.4. The Tribunal also committed an error in relying upon the decisions in Umrala Gram Panchayat versus The Secretary, Municipal Employees Union & Ors reported in 2015 12 SCC 775 and Jaggo V/s. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, as those cases did not pertain to appointments made under fixed term contract (FTC) classification duly recognized under the applicable Standing Orders. In support of the submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Patel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. reported in 1979 (3) SCC 371, wherein the Court held that the burden to prove an allegation rests with the party making such allegation. The test, as laid down, is Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 06:26:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10400/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined whether the case would fail in the absence of evidence by the party alleging the fact. Therefore, in the absence of any specific pleadings or evidence demonstrating exploitation or commission of an unfair labour practice, the learned Tribunal erred in granting the reliefs in the impugned award. In light of the above, learned senior advocate Mr. Patel respectfully submits that the petition deserves to be allowed, and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Upadhyay, appearing for the respondent workmen, submits that the petitioner company had issued letters of engagement on a Fixed Term Contract (FTC) basis in favour of the concerned workmen, whose names are listed in the schedule annexed to the reference. These workmen were appointed to the post of Technician and have been discharging their duties in the Production Department of the petitioner company. It is submitted that the concerned workmen have been rendering uninterrupted service for a substantial period of time. The nature of the work performed by them is permanent and perennial, and is directly connected to the core Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 06:26:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10400/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined manufacturing activities of the petitioner company. It is not the case of the petitioner that the appointments were made to complete a specific project or time-bound assignment. Learned advocate Mr. Upadhyay further submits that the repeated issuance of fixed term contracts by the petitioner company, despite the continuous and ongoing nature of the work, amounts to an unfair labour practice as defined under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said mode of appointment is adopted solely with a view to deny the concerned workmen the legal status and benefits of permanent employment, despite the fact that they are performing work that is permanent in nature. It is contended that no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the petitioner company to substantiate the averments made in its written statement. Although the appointments were ostensibly made on a fixed term basis, many of the workmen continued in service beyond the term of their original contracts without any formal extension orders. During cross-examination, when suggestions were put to the concerned workmen regarding the non-extension of their employment, they Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 06:26:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10400/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined denied the same. However, the petitioner failed to produce any evidence to establish that the appointments were, in fact, made and continued under valid fixed term contract (FTC) arrangements renewed from time to time. In this background, it is submitted that the learned Industrial Tribunal has committed no error in granting the relief of permanency to the concerned workmen, as the facts clearly establish the existence of unfair labour practices and the denial of legitimate rights. Hence the petition is prayed to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it emerges that the Union has raised an industrial dispute by filing a reference seeking a declaration that the appointments of the concerned workmen on a Fixed Term Contract (FTC) basis are illegal. The Union has further prayed for a declaration that the said workmen are required to be treated as permanent employees of the petitioner Company and to be extended all consequential service benefits, such as annual increments, leave encashment, casual leave, medical leave, national holiday leave, canteen facilities, Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 06:26:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10400/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined uniforms, safety shoes, etc. It is noted from the record that the initial appointments were made for the post of ITI Trainee from different dates, for a period of one year. Upon completion of the training period, the employees were appointed as Trainees for a further period of two years. These appointments were subsequently extended from time to time and except for five employees namely, Patel Rahul Ghanshyambhai, Patel Subhashkumar Santosh, Trilok Kumar, Sanjay Vijayraj Yadav, and Bagul Yogesh Pravinbhai all are working as on date.
8. The moot question for determination before this Court is that whether the continued appointment of the workmen on a Fixed Term Contract basis amounts to an illegal and unconstitutional act or constitutes an unfair labour practice under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so, whether the concerned workmen are entitled to be treated as permanent employees of the petitioner Company?
8.1. In order to answer this question, reference is required to be made to the definition of unfair labour practice as provided under Section 2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said provision defines as under:- Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 06:26:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10400/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined "[(ra) "unfair labour practice" means any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule."
8.2. On referring Item No. 10 of the Fifth Schedule, it specifies that "To employ workmen as badlis, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen."
9. Admittedly, the term "Fixed Term Contract" (FTC) workman is not included within the scope of Item 10. It is pertinent to note that Section 2(r)(a) and related provisions namely, Sections 25(T) and 25(U) were introduced by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 (Act No. 46 of 1982), which came into effect from 21.08.1984. These provisions empower the workmen or their unions to seek adjudication in cases involving unfair labour practices and also prescribe penalties for the same. Subsequent to these amendments, the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959 were amended by the Gujarat Government in the year 2006, wherein Rule 2(g) was inserted, defining Fixed Term Employment which referred above. As per the said Rule, a "Fixed Term Employment" workman is one who is engaged on the basis of a contract of Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 06:26:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10400/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined employment for a fixed period. However, the Rule expressly provides that such workman shall not be denied parity with permanent workmen in terms of Working hours, Wages, Allowances and other service benefits. It further stipulates that fixed term contract (FTC) workmen shall be eligible for statutory benefits available to permanent workmen, proportionately according to the duration of their service, even if their period of employment falls short of the qualifying period under the applicable statute. Therefore, in terms of the legal framework governing fixed term contract (FTC) employment, such workers are to be treated at par with permanent employees in all respects, except for the nature of the contract duration.
10. From the written statement filed before the learned Industrial Tribunal, it emerges that the petitioner company has extended to fixed term contract (FTC) workmen all benefits that are otherwise available to permanent employees. A comparative chart which is a part of the written statement is reproduced below for reference :-
Terms & Conditions of Technician(Permanent) Technician (Fixed Term Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 06:26:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10400/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Employment, Benefits & Contract) Welfare Facilities Earning/Privilege Leave 20 20 (PL) Casual Leave (CL) 6 6 Sick Leave (SL) 9 9 Factory Holidays 10 10 Group Medical Insurance 3 Lac Sum Insured 3 Lac Sum Insured Group Personal Accident Same benefits Same benefits Workmen Compensation Same benefits Same benefits Insurance Canteen Benefits Applicable Applicable Transport Facilities Applicable Applicable Uniform, Safety Shoes Applicable Applicable DA Applicable As per DA Applicable As per Baroda Variable Dearness Baroda Textile Mills Textile Mills Consumer Price Allowance (VDA) Consumer Price Index Index As Per the Production As Per the Production Production Incentive incentive Scheme incentive Scheme Applicable Applicable to Technician to Technician Technician Grade T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T8 T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T8
11. It is contended by the petitioner that they are engaged in the manufacturing of transformers, and due to fluctuations in work orders and available workload, a total of 234 employees were appointed on a Fixed Term Contract (FTC) basis for specific periods, which were extended from time to time as per the operational requirements. Out of these, 37 workmen raised an industrial dispute, which came to be adjudicated by the learned Industrial Tribunal. It is not in dispute that some of the employees were relieved upon the expiry of their Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 06:26:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10400/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined respective fixed term contract (FTC), and the legality of such actions has been challenged in pending proceedings. Notably, one such reference resulted in an award in favour of the concerned employee, which has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 13250 of 2023. 11.1. The learned Tribunal, while passing the impugned award, placed reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Jaggo V/s. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 and Umrala Gram Panchayat versus The Secretary, Municipal Employees Union & Ors reported in 2015 12 SCC 775. However, the said decisions pertain to cases involving temporary employees who had raised disputes alleging exploitation and unfair labour practices. Upon referring to the comparative chart of benefits referred hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that no conclusion can be drawn to suggest that the concerned FTC workmen have been subjected to exploitation or that the petitioner has engaged in any unfair labour practice as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is true that the FTC employees engaged from the year Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 06:26:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10400/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined 2016 onwards have continued in service up to the present. However, the mere fact of long or continued service does not, by itself, create any inherent or vested right to regularization, particularly when it is established that there is no evidence of exploitation, The concerned workmen have not been deprived of any benefits or pay scales available to permanent employees as well as all statutory and service-related benefits including wages, allowances, and working conditions have been extended to fixed term contract (FTC) employees in parity with regular workmen. 11.2. It is also not the case that the workmen were unaware of the nature of their appointments. On the contrary, the record indicates that they accepted employment with full knowledge and consent, being fully aware that the appointments were on a fixed term basis. The petitioner, in turn, extended the term of such contracts in response to fluctuating business requirements and market conditions. In such a scenario, it cannot be said that the petitioner has engaged in any form of unfair labour practice, nor can it be alleged that the respondents were exploited. The continuation of service beyond the Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 06:26:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10400/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined originally stipulated tenure, in the absence of any legal right to regularization, cannot by itself confer upon the workmen any claim for permanent status. Furthermore, it is a well-settled principle that fixed term appointments do not, by their nature, create a right to absorption or permanency, even if the employee has rendered continuous service over an extended period.
12. The judgment of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Versus Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers' Union reported in 2024 (3) SCALE 649, relied upon by the learned advocate Mr. Upadhyay, in the case, upon careful perusal, reveals that the issue before the Apex Court pertained to a claim for regularization based on a settlement dated 05.04.1997. In that context, the Apex Court held that the remaining workers, who were similarly situated as those already regularized, were entitled to the relief of permanency, particularly as the nature of duties performed by all such workmen was perennial in nature and there was no distinction in the work performed by the two sets of employees. However, in the present case, although the nature of duties performed by the concerned fixed term contract (FTC) Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 06:26:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10400/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined workmen may be perennial, the facts remain distinguishable. The workmen in question accepted employment on a Fixed Term Contract basis, with full knowledge of the terms of their engagement, and have been receiving wages and service benefits equivalent to those of regular employees. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, the aforesaid judgment has no applicability to the facts of the present case and does not support the claim for permanency made by the fixed term contract (FTC) workmen herein.
13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the determination of the strength of the labour force falls squarely within the prerogative of the management. The number of workmen required to efficiently carry out operations in an industrial undertaking must be left to the discretion of the employer, as part of his inherent managerial rights to organize and conduct business in the manner deemed most suitable. Provided that such managerial decisions are taken in good faith and are not tainted by mala fides or unfair labour practices, it is not within the jurisdiction or competence of the Tribunal to question the propriety of such decisions. Where it is Page 19 of 21 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 06:26:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10400/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined demonstrated that the management's action is bona fide and not actuated by any improper motive, and that it is financially unsustainable for the employer to bear the existing labour costs indefinitely, the discretion to determine the organizational structure, including the employment of fixed term contract (FTC) employees, must rest with the management. The Tribunal is empowered to interfere only where it is conclusively established that the decision of the management is vitiated by bad faith, discrimination, victimization, or other unfair labour practices. In the absence of such findings, the interference by the learned Tribunal with the management's decision to engage Fixed Term Employees was unwarranted and constitutes an error of law.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in granting the benefit of permanency to the Fixed Term Contract (FTC) workmen. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 28.02.2025 passed in Reference (IT) No. 231 of 2021 is hereby quashed and set aside.
Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 06:26:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10400/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
15. Resultantly, this petition is allowed.
16. Rule is made absolute.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 21 of 21 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 06:26:11 IST 2025