Gujarat High Court
Range Forest Officer vs Kanaksinh Prabhatsinh Vaghela on 1 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11160/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11160 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
RANGE FOREST OFFICER & ANR.
Versus
KANAKSINH PRABHATSINH VAGHELA
================================================================
Appearance:
MS ROSHNI PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1,2
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 01/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner - State of Gujarat under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act") challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 25.01.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) Case No. 65 of 2015, whereby, the learned Judge has partly allowed the Reference preferred by the respondent-workman and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman at his original post without backwages.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:21:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11160/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined respondent-workman was working with petitioner since July 1990 and his last drawn salary was Rs.173.20 and was not taken back in service after 3 years of gap. Being aggrieved by the same, he preferred aforesaid Reference before the Labour Court, Bhavnagar by filing claim statement dated 25.04.2015, which was opposed by the petitioner by filing written statement dated 25.04.2015. That, it was specifically contended in written statement that the respondent- workman was not terminated but rather had to voluntarily stop coming to duty due to medical emergency in family and therefore, from April, 2012 to July, 2014 he did not come for work. That, the respondent-workman stopped coming to his duty voluntarily and he was not terminated. That, the Labour Court without considering the aforesaid aspect has partly allowed the Reference by directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent on his original post vide its judgment and award dated 25.01.2024.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and award dated 25.01.2024 passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) Case No. 65 of 2015, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
4. Heard Ms. Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the petitioner - State.
Though the notice and notice of Rule issued by this Court are served upon the respondent-workman, the respondent-workman has chosen not to remain present before the Court and therefore, this Court has proceeded with the matter in absence of the respondent- workman.
5. Learned AGP Ms. Patel has submitted that the impugned Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:21:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11160/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is erroneous, illegal and contrary to the facts and records of the case. She has submitted that the respondent-workman was unauthorizedly absent from the year 2012 and again on 07.11.2014, he came to office to report for duty and for his absence, he had neither applied any sick-leave nor any other leave and there was no leave report submitted by him before the authority and he unauthorizedly remained absent during duty and therefore, without considering all these facts, the Labour Court has passed the impugned judgment and award, which is erroneous, illegal and unjust. She has further submitted that though all these facts were contended before the Labour Court, the Labour Court has not considered the same in its true and proper spirit. She has submitted that though there was no breach of provisions of Sections 25(B), 25(B)(1) or 25(B)(2), 25(F) or 25(E) of the Act, however, the Labour Court has held that the respondent-workman was illegally retrenched / terminated from the services and therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is erroneous, illegal and unjust. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned AGP Ms. Patel has urged that the impugned judgment and award be quashed and set aside and the present petition be allowed.
6. I have heard the learned AGP Ms. Patel, appearing for the petitioner-State and perused the material placed on record. I have also gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court. It is an admitted fact that the respondent-workman had worked from the year 1990 to 2012 and during that period, the respondent-workman remained unauthorizedly absent from the services and considering the fact that he served with the petitioner- establishment for a long tenure, the case of the respondent-workman Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:21:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11160/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined can be considered for lumpsum compensation, instead of reinstatement with continuity of service, as the respondent-workman has already reached the age of superannuation considering his birth- date 13.02.1967. Thus, it would sub-serve the interest of justice if the respondent-workman is granted lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs.3 Lac towards full and final settlement.
7. In the result, the present petition is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 25.01.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) Case No. 65 of 2015 is modified to the extent that, the petitioner is hereby directed to pay lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs.3 Lac to the respondent-workman towards full and final settlement. The same shall be paid directly to the respondent-workman after verifying his Bank details and after following due procedure of law through RTGS/NEFT or any other appropriate mode, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of order of this Court and, if, any untowrds is noted, then the amount shall be paid to the legal heirs of the respondent- workman. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:21:40 IST 2025