Securevalue India Limited vs Sarva Shramik Sanghatana

Petition challenges judgment dated 9 May 2022 passed by the learned Judge, 1^st Labour Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No.109 of 2017 and directing reinstatement of the concerned workmen with 50% backwages w.e.f. 9 June 2017. Petitioners unsuccessfully assailed the judgment and order dated 9 May 2022 of the Labour Court by filing Revision Application (ULP) No.22 of 2022 before the Industrial Court, Mumbai, which has been rejected by judgment and order dated 4 December 2023, which is also subject matter of challenge in the present Petition.

¶14

I have heard Mr. Shukla, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Ms. Singh, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondent.

¶15

Page No. 1 of 3 10 September 2025

¶16

Megha 51_wp_3741_2024.docx

¶17

The only point canvassed by Mr. Shukla is that since termination of the concerned workmen was without holding enquiry, Petitioners ought to have been given opportunity to prove their misconduct by leading evidence before the Labour Court. He would invite my attention to the relevant averments in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Petitioners opposing the Complaint on 25 July 2017, in which Petitioners had prayed for an opportunity to justify their action of termination of services of 7 workmen by leading evidence before the Labour Court.

¶18

Though Petitioners may have averred in the affidavit-in-reply that they desired to lead evidence to prove misconduct against the concerned 7 workmen, it is an undisputed position that apart from making such bald averments in the affidavit-in-reply, Petitioners never applied to the Labour Court seeking an opportunity to lead evidence to prove the misconduct. Mere making a bald averment in the affidavit-inreply for an opportunity to lead evidence in misconduct is not sufficient. The complaint remained pending for over 5 long years. Petitioners did not express desire to lead evidence before the Labour Court to prove the misconduct. They never submitted any list of witnesses which they proposed to examine before the Labour Court. They did not even file any application seeking leave of the Labour Court for leading evidence. The Labour Court has awaited for five long years after filing of the Complaint on behalf of the concerned workmen. The Labour Court was not expected to take note of the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply and wait forever for Petitioners to produce witnesses before the Labour Court. Also, the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners had argued the Complaint before the Labour Court with full knowledge that no evidence

¶19

Page No. 2 of 3

¶20

10 September 2025

¶21

Megha 51_wp_3741_2024.docx

¶22

was led to prove the misconduct. At least at the stage of arguments, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners could have requested the Labour Court to defer the arguments till evidence was led by the Petitioners. The very fact that the learned Advocate of the Petitioners took risk of arguing the Complaint in absence of evidence, makes it abundantly clear that the Petitioners never really desired examination of any witnesses to prove the misconduct. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the objection sought to be raised on behalf of the Petitioners.

¶23

In absence of any evidence on record, the Labour Court has rightly set aside the termination while directing reinstatement with 50% backwages. No interference is warranted in the impugned order. Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.

¶24

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

¶25

Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 11/09/2025 19:58:15

¶26

Page No. 3 of 3 10 September 2025

Securevalue India Limited v. Sarva Shramik Sanghatana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Securevalue India Limited v. Sarva Shramik Sanghatana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanjaykumar Madhusudan Yadav vs Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

Regus South Mumbai Business Centre Private Limited vs Marie Gold Realtors Private Limited

Kotak Securities Limited vs Gajanan Ramdas Rajguru

Minwala Gems and Jewels Private Ltd. vs Shyam Sundar Jana

Deepcon India Company Private Ltd. vs Satyam Co. operative Housing Society Ltd.

Sudhir Brijendra Jain vs Rajendra Dhedya Gavit