Gujarat High Court
Dharabhai Gandabhai ... vs Assistant Conservator Of Forest on 3 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4762/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4762 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
DHARABHAI GANDABHAI BHARWAD(DECEASED) & ANR.
Versus
ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PH PATHAK(665) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1
MS FORAM TRIVEDI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 03/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned award dated 9.8.2019 in Reference (T) No. 266 of 2005 passed by the Labour Court, Kalol, whereby the Labour Court has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of workman instead of backwages and reinstatement in service .
2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner joined service of respondents since 1980 as Watchman. The petitioner's service Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 20:51:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4762/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined was illegally terminated by respondent w.e.f. 4.3.2005 without following any due procedure. Even notice or notice pay has not been given to the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the said termination, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Kalol and the Labour Court, Kalol vide order dated 9.8.2019 awarded lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of petitioner instead of backwages and reinstatement in service.
3. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has preferred present petition.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has submitted that the labour Court committed serious error of law in appreciating the evidence led before it. Over-and- above, the grounds enumerated in the memo of petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment and 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.
6. On the other hand, learned AGP for the respondents has objected the petition and submitted that the Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment. 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 Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 20:51:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4762/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined Court by considering the facts of the case and the settled legal principles and therefore, present petition may not be allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the labour Court may be confirmed.
7. Considering the submissions canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, it appears that the Labour Court has rightly appreciated the evidence while coming to the conclusion and without there being any rebuttal, on the other hand, the Labour Court has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- . 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 amount of compensation awarded by the Labour Court requires to be enhanced.
8. 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:-
Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 20:51:48 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4762/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined "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 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 Amount of lump sum lump 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
9. 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 Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 20:51:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4762/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined 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 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."
10. 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 the workman, which will Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 20:51:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4762/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined serve the ends of justice.
11. In view of the above, present petition is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 9.8.2019 in Reference (T) No. 266 of 2005 passed by the Labour Court, Kalol, is hereby 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. There shall be no order as to costs. If the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- 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. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 20:51:48 IST 2025