Gujarat High Court upholds ₹2 Lakh compensation to dairy employee, rejects employer’s claim of job abandonment

In a case that blended workplace discipline, procedural lapses, and the fine print of who qualifies as a “workman” under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Gujarat High Court on August 12, 2025 upheld an award of ₹2,00,000 in favour of a long-serving employee of Amulfed Dairy (formerly Mother Dairy). The respondent, who joined as a trainee in 1994, rose to the position of Junior Officer in the Dispatch Department by 2007. Trouble began in December 2008, when the employer alleged that he watched prohibited movies during work hours and was asked to submit an apology. Instead, he proceeded on approved leave from 29–30 December, worked half a day on 31 December, and then took further leave due to his wife’s illness. Upon attempting to resume duty in January 2009, he claimed he was denied entry amounting to oral termination.

The employer argued before the Labour Court that he was not a “workman” since he supervised staff and further contended that he had abandoned his job rather than being retrenched. However, the Labour Court found that his primary duties preparing challans, daily reports, and clerical work were not supervisory in nature, and that incidental oversight of a few employees did not alter his status. The Court also noted that no apology letter, show cause notice, or departmental inquiry was ever placed on record to substantiate the misconduct allegation, and the leave taken was partly approved.

Taking into account his 14 years of service, age (52 years at the time of litigation), and uncontroverted unemployment since termination, the Labour Court awarded lump sum compensation of ₹2,00,000 in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. On appeal, Justice M.K. Thakker of the Gujarat High Court agreed that the burden was on the employer to prove that he was excluded from the definition of “workman” and to justify the manner of separation burdens they failed to discharge. The petition was dismissed, and the compensation award stood, serving as a reminder that procedural fairness and evidentiary rigour are non-negotiable in termination cases, especially when contesting an employee’s statutory status.