Gujarat High Court
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Maheshkumar Govindbhai ... on 12 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/461/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 461 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Versus
MAHESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI MAKWANA(DECEASED) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 12/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.U.T.Mishra waives notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent.
2. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner challenges the award dated 31.05.2019 passed by the Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/461/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined learned Labour Court, directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 20% back wages from 01.01.2019 till the date of reinstatement. It is further observed in the said award that no benefits shall be granted to the respondent for the interregnum period.
3. It is the case of the present petitioner that the respondent was employed as a Daily Wager in the Garden Department of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation from 13.01.1997 to 01.09.1999. After a delay of seven years, the respondent raised an industrial dispute alleging illegal termination w.e.f. 01.09.1999 and sought reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The learned Labour Court, by its award dated 13.05.2014, rejected the reference on the ground that the respondent had not completed 240 days of continuous service, and therefore, failed to establish a violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said order was passed on 13.05.2014, which was challenged before this Court by way of filing the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 1440 of 2015 wherein, this Court has upheld the finding with regard to the violation of section 25(F) of the ID Act and Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/461/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined has remanded back to learned Labour Court to examine the case with regard to the violation of section 25(G) of the ID Act. Upon remand, the learned Labour Court reconsidered the matter and vide award dated 31.05.2019, held that there was a violation of Section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act and accordingly directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 20% back wages from 01.01.2019 till the actual date of reinstatement. The learned Labour Court further observed that the respondent shall not be entitled to any benefits for the interregnum period from the date of termination till 31.12.2018. It is pertinent to note that the respondent expired on 23.12.2018, prior to the date from which back wages were directed to be paid. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-employer challenging the award dated 31.05.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the petitioner Corporation and learned advocate Mr.U.T.Mishra for the respondent.
5. Learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the learned Labour Court has Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/461/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined committed a grave error in allowing the reference in favour of the respondent by disregarding the significant issue of delay of nearly eight years. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that that the learned Labour Court, in the earlier round of litigation, had rightly held that there was no violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the said finding was duly upheld by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1440 of 2015. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that learned Labour Court has erroneously concluded that there was a breach of Section 25(G) of the Act. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that in arriving at this finding, the learned Labour Court has relied upon certain termination orders passed in respect of other employees, which were issued subsequent to the termination of the present respondent. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that in any cases, as the respondent dies on 23.12.2018, therefore, the respondent would not be entitled for any relief and in that background the petition is required to be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Mishra, appearing for the respondent, submits that on the date of the award, Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/461/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined the respondent was approximately 48 years of age and was suffering from tongue cancer. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that the respondent unfortunately passed away before he could be reinstated in service pursuant to the award. In light of these circumstances, learned advocate Mr. Mishra urges this Court to consider awarding a lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, in the interest of justice.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it emerges that the impugned award has not been challenged by the respondent by way of a petition before this Court. It is further noted that the finding of the learned Labour Court in the earlier round of litigation, that there was no violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was upheld by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1440 of 2015 filed by the workman. Therefore, the only issue that falls for consideration in the present petition is whether the finding of the learned Labour Court regarding violation of Section 25(G) of the Act is just, proper. From the record, it is evident that the Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/461/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined learned Labour Court has recorded the list of employees who were junior to the respondent and whose services were terminated after the termination of the respondent. Specific references in this regard are found at pages 56 to 58 of the impugned award. The petitioner, despite maintaining a seniority list, failed to adhere to it while effecting the termination, and the said list was also produced before the learned Labour Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Labour Court has committed no error in arriving at the conclusion that there was a breach of Section 25(G) of the Act and in awarding reinstatement accordingly. However, it is also an undisputed fact that the learned Labour Court directed payment of 20% back wages with effect from 01.01.2019, whereas the respondent had unfortunately expired on 23.12.2018. Considering this factual scenario, coupled with the circumstance that the respondent was suffering from tongue cancer, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met by awarding a lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. Accordingly, a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) is awarded to the Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/461/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined legal heirs of the deceased respondent towards full and final settlement of the claim arising out of the impugned award dated 31.05.2019.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is partly allowed. The petitioner is directed to pay the lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the legal heirs of the deceased workman. The said amount shall be paid preferably within a period of 12 (twelve) weeks from the date of this order.
9. Resultantly this petition is partly allowed.
10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:27 IST 2025