Gujarat High Court
Mehmudbhai Gafarbhai Kureshi vs Executive Engineer on 3 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15075 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16200 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
-- No
==========================================
MEHMUDBHAI GAFARBHAI KURESHI
Versus
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR. JAINISH P SHAH(7033) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SWEETI SAMARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 03/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Both the petitions being Special Civil Application No.15075 of 2020 and Special Civil Application No. 16200 of 2020 are filed by the respective petitioners - employee under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned award dated 10.09.2020 passed by the Labour Court, Amreli in Reference (T) Case No. 1 of 2015 and 2 of 2015, whereby the Labour Court has partly allowed the references and awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.40,000/- instead of back wages and reinstatement in service.
Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:37:30 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined
2. Facts of Special Civil Application No. 15075 of 2020 are that the petitioner was working as part time peon for five hours and his service hours was increased to six hours and he has been in continuous and uninterrupted service of the respondent - authorities till he was illegally retrenched by the respondent - authorities. That the petitioner was terminated from the service w.e.f. 01.04.2006 without any notice or notice pay and hence, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court which was registered as Reference (T) Case No. 1 of 2015, which came to be partly allowed and directed the respondent/s to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner.
3. Facts of Special Civil Application No. 16200 of 2020 are that the petitioner was working as part time peon with the office of the Panchayat, R & B Department and directed him to perform duty from 9.00 am to 7.00 am and, thereafter, he transferred from present office to workshp, R & B Department. That the petitioner has performed his duty from 14.06.2001 to 01.04.2006 without any physical or artificial break in his service and hence undisputedly the petitioner has worked 240 days in preceding year. That the petitioner was terminated from the service w.e.f. 01.04.2006 without any notice or notice pay and hence, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court which was registered as Reference (T) Case No. 2 of 2015, which came to be partly allowed and directed the respondent/s to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner.
4. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the respective petitioners have preferred these petitions.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties in both the petitions.
Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:37:30 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined
6. Mr.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.15075 of 2020 has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has submitted that the workman was appointed as part time peon and he has worked for seven years without any break and w.e.f. 01.04.2006, his service came to be terminated by the respondent/s without there being any reason or any fault on the part of the workman. He has submitted that though the Labour Court has considered the fact that there was clear breach of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, despite of this fact, the Labour Court has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards the lump sum compensation as full and final settlement instead of back wages and reinstatement in service. Over-and-above, the grounds enumerated in the memo of petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is illegal, unjust and improper and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.
7. Mr.Lakhani, learned counsel for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 16200 of 2020 has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has submitted that the workman was appointed as part time peon and he has worked from 14.06.2001 to 01.06.2006 without any break and w.e.f. 01.04.2006, his service came to be terminated by the respondent/s without there being any reason or any fault on the part of the workman. He has submitted that though the Labour Court has considered the fact that there was clear breach of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, despite of this fact, the Labour Court has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards the lump sum compensation as full and final settlement instead of back wages and reinstatement in service. Over-and-above, the grounds enumerated in the memo of petition, the learned counsel Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:37:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is illegal, unjust and improper and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.
8. Ms.Mandavia, learned counsel for the respondent has objected the both petitions and submitted that the Labour Court has not committed any error while allowing the reference and directing the employer to pay lump sum compensation instead of reinstate of the workmen in service. She has submitted that the appointment of the workman was not a permanent in nature and, therefore, while passing the impugned award, the Labour Court has committed an error while believing that there was a breach of the provisions of Section 25F, in fact, neither of the parties has produced any evidence to show that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year and without there being any record, the Labour Court has recorded the finding which is contrary to the facts of the case and, therefore, the same is just and proper and no interference is required to be called for. She has submitted that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is in consonance with the provisions of law. She has submitted that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court by considering the facts of the case and the settled legal principles and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation as they were not appointed on regular recruitment process and not entitled for any relief as claimed in the reference. She has submitted that the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed.
9. Considering the submissions canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, it appears that the Labour Court has rightly Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:37:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined appreciated the evidence while coming to the conclusion and without there being any rebuttal, on the other hand, the Labour Court has awarded Rs.50,000/- in Reference (T) Case No. 1 of 2015 and Rs.40,000/- in Reference (T) Case No. 2 of 2015 which is erroneous. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited Versus Suresh S/o Dadarao Gadge reported in (2015) 4 SCC 542 and the oral order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023 and allied appeals more particularly para - 10 and the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1091 of 2023 and allied appeals more particularly paras - 5 and 6 and the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1198 of 2025, this Court is of the opinion that the purpose would be served if lump sum amount of awarded by the Labour Court is required to be enhanced.
10. The relevant para - 10 of the oral order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023 and allied appeals reads thus:-
"10. Having come to the conclusion that the lump sum compensation would be appropriate remedy for the families of the deceased workmen, the other aspects which comes for consideration is quantum of lump sum compensation. Though learned advocate Mr. Bhatt has contended that there was delay in preferring the complaint and the subsequent reference, it can be observed from the pleadings that the averments with regard to delay and laches in preferring the reference were not made before the labour court as well as the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the argument of learned advocate Mr. Bhatt with regard to delay and laches in preferring reference cannot be countenanced and what needs to be seen is that almost all the workmen have put in 16-20 years of service for the Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:37:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined respondent and their services were terminated without following due procedure of law. Therefore, the families of the deceased workmen needs to be compensated proportionally as to the number of years of service put in by them. However, in order to balance the equation, we have considered to give effect of delay in preferring the reference while enhancing the amount of compensation. Thus, while calculating the number of years of services, we proposed to deduct the number of years service for which there is delay in preferring reference. After deduction of such number of service, we propose to give compensation in the following tabular form:
Sr.No. Total no. of years for lump Amount of lump sum sum compensation compensation 1 5 to 10 years Rs.3.00 lacs 2 10-15 years Rs.5.00 lacs 3 15-20 years Rs.7.5 lacs
11. The relevant paras 5 and 6 of the oral order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1091 of 2023 and allied appeals reads thus:-
"5. Therefore, looking to the gap which intervened between the date of termination and the date of granting reinstatement, the approach of the learned Single Judge granting lump sum compensation cannot be faulted with.
6. Looking to the various aspects and factors which are considered above, like the nature of employment, time gap intervened, length of service, the compensation awarded to the tune could not be said to be unreasonable. Therefore, Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the Municipality on the question of amount of compensation as well as appeals preferred by the workmen seeking reinstatement are liable to be dismissed. However, in one of the matters being Letters Patent Appeal No. 701 of 2023 in Special Civil Application No. 18334 of 2021 in the case of workman being Koli Vairaginiben Ramkumar, we observe that the compensation given by the learned Single Judge is to the tune of Rs.6,25,000/- for 11 years of service. It can be observed from the order passed by the learned Single Judge Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:37:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined that such amount is proportionally different from the other set of amounts which are given as compensation. However, for the identical years of work i.e. 11 years of service, the other workmen are granted an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- as lump sum compensation. Thus, we are inclined to modify the amount of lump sum compensation in Letters Patent Appeal No. 701 of 2023 to the tune of Rs.3,25,000/- from Rs.6,25,000/-. Hence, Letters Patent Appeal No. 701 of 2023 is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent, whereas, all the other Letters Patent Appeals stand dismissed as no ground is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge."
12. Now, considering the materials placed on record and the peculiar facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that instead of granting any back wages and reinstatement in service as prayed for, it would be just and proper to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to both the workmen, which will serve the ends of justice.
13. So far as Special Civil Application No.15075 of 2020 is concerned, the petition stands allowed in part. The impugned award passed by the Labour Court is hereby quashed and set aside and the award is modified accordingly. An amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as lump sum compensation shall be paid to the workman by the employer after proper verification of the identity and bank details through RTGS within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. If the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by the employer then the same shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and if the said amount is not paid then the lump sum amount which is awarded by this Court shall be paid to the workman. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. So far as Special Civil Application No.16200 of 2020 is concerned, the petition stands allowed in part. The impugned award Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:37:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined passed by the Labour Court is hereby quashed and set aside and the award is modified accordingly. An amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as lump sum compensation shall be paid to the workman by the employer after proper verification of the identity and bank details through RTGS within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. If the amount of Rs.40,000/- paid by the employer then the same shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and if the said amount is not paid then the lump sum amount which is awarded by this Court shall be paid to the workman. There shall be no order as to costs.
15. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in both the petitions.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:37:30 IST 2025