Gujarat High Court
Sajid Mohammad Abdul Ajij Makrani vs Deputy Executive Engineer on 2 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2814/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2814 of 2025
==========================================================
SAJID MOHAMMAD ABDUL AJIJ MAKRANI
Versus
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS FORAM TRIVEDI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 02/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the impugned award dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Labour Court, Godhara in Reference (T) No. 621 of 2006 whereby the labour Court has awarded lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner.
2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that present petitioner was working with the respondent since 1986 as a daily wager Watchman. After period of four years, the petitioner was illegally and arbitrarily terminated by the respondent from the services in the year 1990.
2.1 Against the said termination, the petitioner has raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Godhara being Reference (T) No. 621 of 2006, whereby the Labour Court instead of granting the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service along with all consequential benefits and full back- wages, granted the lump sum compensation to the tune of Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 23:05:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2814/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined Rs.1,00,000/-.
2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Labour Court, Godhara, in Reference (T) No. 621 of 2006, the petitioner has preferred present petition,
3. Heard Mr. P.C. Chaudhari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Foram Trivedi, learned AGP for the respondent.
4. Mr. Chaudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the labour Court suffers from serious legal infirmities and complete non-application of settled principles of labour jurisprudence. He has submitted that after holding that the termination of the petitioner was illegal and after deciding almost all issues in favour of the petitioner--including the issue of delay--the Labour Court was duty-bound to grant the consequential relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages however instead, without assigning any cogent or exceptional reasons, the Labour Court has awarded a lumpsum compensation of only Rs.1,00,000/-. He has submitted that the said approach is not only perverse but also contrary to the well-established principle that once the termination is held to be illegal, reinstatement is the normal rule and compensation is the exception.
4.1 Mr. Chaudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after appreciating the evidence, the Labour Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 23:05:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2814/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined Court recorded categorical findings in favour of the petitioner on every material aspect including the issue of delay. He has submitted that the respondent never challenged the terms of reference nor even pleaded delay in the written statement. It is further submitted that the respondent is a Public Works Department and the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 governing regularization of daily wagers is in force. He has submitted that in a case where the petitioner has served since 1986, was terminated in 1990, raised the dispute in 2006 and has secured an industrial award only in 2024, granting a meagre compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is illogical, inequitable and wholly disproportionate and such an award virtually legitimizes the illegal termination.
4.2 Mr. Chaudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment and award is illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed and set aside and present petition requires to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, Ms. Foram Trivedi, learned AGP for the respondent has submitted that the impugned award passed by Labour Court is just and proper and no interference is required to be made. She has further submitted that the Labour Court has rightly rejected the claim of the present petitioner.
5.1 Ms. Trivedi, learned AGP, has submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the reference filed by the petitioner-workman has been preferred almost after a period of 16 years from the date of termination of his Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 23:05:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2814/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined service and, therefore, there is gross delay in approaching the authority for raising the dispute. Though in the written submissions filed by the respondent at Exh. 12 and Exh. 21, and as referred to by the Labour Court in paragraph No. 4 of the order, this aspect has been specifically pointed out; however, the same has not been duly considered while passing the impugned award, and the Labour Court has erroneously granted a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, which is absolutely perverse, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
5.2 Mr. Trivedi, learned AGP has further submitted that the petitioner has failed to prove that he had completed 240 days of service in any calendar year, though in the statement of claim he has alleged that he worked from 1986 and had completed 240 days in each calendar year. However, no documentary evidence was produced in support of such a claim and, in the absence of any cogent and material evidence, the Labour Court ought not to have granted compensation. She has also pointed out that during his cross- examination, the petitioner has clearly admitted that though he was removed from service in 1990, he did not raise any dispute until 2006 and that he was earning his livelihood by doing other work during this interregnum. Despite this, the Labour Court failed to appreciate these material aspects while passing the impugned judgment and award of Rs.1,00,000/- towards lump sum compensation. However, she fairly admits that the respondent has not challenged the impugned judgment and award by way of any appropriate proceedings.
Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 23:05:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2814/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
5.3 Ms.Trivedi, learned AGP for the respondent has further submitted that after evaluating the evidence on record and after taking into account all the relevant aspects, labour Court has passed impugned judgment and award and therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and present petition may be dismissed.
6. I have perused the material along with the relevant documents available on record. I have also gone through the impugned award passed by the Labour Court.
7. It appears that though the contention regarding delay and absence of documentary evidence was specifically raised before the Labour Court, as reflected in paragraph No. 4 of the award, the Labour Court failed to consider and appreciate the same while passing the impugned judgment and award. In the cross-examination, the petitioner himself admitted that he had worked only from 1986 to 1990 and that no documentary evidence was produced to establish completion of 240 days in each calendar year. It was also admitted that for nearly 16 years, no proceedings were initiated by the petitioner against the respondent. Despite these undisputed facts, the Labour Court proceeded to grant relief, and therefore, the present petition does not deserve to be entertained on merits.
8. Even otherwise, this Court has earlier dismissed petition on the ground that a delay of 11 years in raising an industrial dispute was held to be fatal. In view of the decision dated 18.06.2024 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 23:05:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2814/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined No. 3643 of 2019, the present petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground gross delay.
9. At this it is appropriate to refer the decision in case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division, Kota vs. Mohanlal reported in (2013) 14 SCC 543, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"19. We are clearly of the view that though the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the reference made under the I.D. Act but delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance which the Labour Court must keep in view at the time of exercise of discretion irrespective of whether or not such objection hasbeen raised by the other side. The legal position laid down by this Court in Gitam Singh that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute, must be invariably followed.
20. Now, if the facts of the present case are seen, the position that emerges is this: the workman worked as a work-charged employee for a period from 01.11.1984 to 17.02.1986 (in all he worked for 286 days during his employment). The services of the workman were terminated with effect from 18.02.1986. The workman raised the industrial dispute in 1992, i.e., after 6 years of termination. The Labour Court did not keep in view admitted delay of 6 years in raising the industrial dispute by the workman. The judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court is, thus, flawed and unsustainable. The Division Bench of the High Court was clearly in error in restoring the award of the Labour Court whereby reinstatement was granted to the workman. Though, the compensation awarded by the Single Judge was too low and needed to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief."
10. In the decision of this Court in case of Virendrakumar Jayantilal Ganatra vs. Gujarat Electricity Board reported in 2004(2) G.L.H. 112, this Court has held as under:-
"1.1. In one case the petitioner had gone abroad without waiting Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 23:05:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2814/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined for the grant of permission to proceed on leave by the superior officer and the same was treated to be continued absence from duty without prior permission of the concerned authority which made her liable to be discharged from the service in view of Regulation 113 and accordingly she was discharged from the service. The facts of each case would be discussed in detail little later in this judgment.
1.2. Since Regulation 113, which has been resorted to by the Board to bring about the end of the services of the petitioners, it has now become the main target of attack of the petitioners. It is, therefore, required to be reproduced verbatim. It reads as under :-
Regulation-113 : Continued absence from duty or overstay, inspite of warning, to return to duty, shall render the employee liable to summarilydischarged from service without the necessity of proceedings under the Gujarat Electricity Board Conduct, Discipline and appeal procedure. Obviously now the controversy is whether termination of the services of the petitioners with the help of Regulation 113 is just, proper and valid in light of the contentions that have been raised in the petitions and the submissions made during the course of hearing by the counsels for the parties.
14.2. The aforesaid narration as well as the impugned order of dismissal from the service would clearly show how regulation 113 can be misused for victimizing an employee. The impugned order of terminating the service of the petitioner, if closely perused, would indicate that though it is based on regulation 113, it is an order of dismissal and not discharge simpliciter as envisaged under that regulation. Learned advocate of the Board Mr. Munshaw has tried to suggest that the word dismissal is loosely used, otherwise the rest of the contents of the impugned order would make it very clear that the power had been exercised under regulation 113. But considering the factual background in which this order has been passed, it is nothing but by way of a penal measure and the order clearly appears to be punitive in nature. In similar circumstances, learned Single Judge of this Court [Coram : Coram : H.K. Rathod, J.] in Special Civil Application No. 10251 of 2001 in the case of G.E.B. v/s. Girishbhai Valjibhai Chudgar, while considering the order passed under this very provision i.e. regulation 113, has not given any different meaning to word dismiss and has held that the concerned employee of that case was dismissed from the service for the alleged misconduct of remaining absent. The Division Bench also in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 652 of 2002 filed against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge, on 2/7/2002, has held that when there is order of dismissal, the procedure prescribed for passing such order and principles of natural justice are violated. It had therefore, quashed and set aside the said order with an observation that it was open for the Board to follow the requisite procedure and pass appropriate order in Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 23:05:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2814/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined accordance with law. Thus, in the instant case also it was an order of dismissal and the respondent-Board was required to follow the procedure prescribed under the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules before passing such order. Admittedly, that had not been done. The impugned order, therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside."
11. Now, it is well settled that the workman has to approach and raise the industrial dispute within reasonable time, though there is no time limit prescribed under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, the industrial dispute is required to be raised within reasonable time. In present case, gross delay occurred in filing the reference and with regard to the same, there is no any explanation by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
12. So far as the delay is concerned, this Court is of the view that policy of industrial adjudication to be kept in mind is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed inasmuch as unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay as, apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effect which it is likely to have on the employer's financial arrangement and to avoid dislocation of an industry. As herein the present case the petitioner is unable to explain the long delay. Doctrine of laches is in fact an application of maxim of equity "delay defeats equities". The case of present petitioner is defeated on account of delay in approaching the Labour Court.
13. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Prabhakar vs. Joint Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 23:05:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2814/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined Director Sericulture Department and another reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1, has discussed with regard to the existence of the industrial dispute for this long period and that long period without any explanation cannot be considered by the Court. Here also in present case, the learned Counsel Mr. Chaudhari, has submitted he has no any explanation with regard to inordinate delay.
14. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in the above referred decisions, this Court is of the opinion that present petition is devoid of any merits and present petition does not deserve to be entertained and the same deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.
15. The amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as awarded by the labour Court be paid to the petitioner after due verification and after verifying his bank details through RTGS/NEFT within period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of present order.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 23:05:42 IST 2025