Range Forest Officer vs Deepakbhai Mansukhbhai Bariya

Gujarat High Court

Range Forest Officer vs Deepakbhai Mansukhbhai Bariya on 4 December, 2025

                                                                                                         NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/13483/2024                              ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025

                                                                                                          undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13483 of 2024

                       ==============================================================
                                                    RANGE FOREST OFFICER
                                                            Versus
                                                DEEPAKBHAI MANSUKHBHAI BARIYA
                       ==============================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS AGNEYA MANKAD AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==============================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
                               PRACHCHHAK

                                                       Date : 04/12/2025

                                                         ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 12.01.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 84 of 2019 whereby the Labour Court had partly allowed the reference filed by the respondent and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service along with the cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the respondent was employed as a daily wager with the petitioner since 01.01.2011 and the respondent was orally terminated from the services on 03.09.2014. Consequently, the respondent raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Godhra whereby the Labour Court vide order dated 12.01.2024 partly allowed the respondent's reference with order to reinstate the respondent Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:45:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13483/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined with continuity of service along with the cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 12.01.2024, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

4. Heard Ms. Agneya Mankad, learned AGP for the petitioner and Mr. Dipak Dave, leaned counsel for the respondent at length. Perused the material available on record.

5. Ms. Mankad, learned AGP for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is erroneous, bad in law and contrary to the facts and records of the case and therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside. She has submitted that the Labour Court has erroneously considered the fact that the petitioner would come under the definition of "industry" as per section 2(j) of the The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That, the respondent had not adduced any evidence to prove that he was working with petitioner since last 10 years. That, the Labour Court had not considered the fact that the respondent herein was not in continuous service with petitioner as per Section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned AGP Ms. Mankad has urged that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is required to be quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed.

6. As against that, learned counsel Mr. Dave, appearing for the respondent-workman, has opposed the present petition and Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:45:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13483/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined submitted that there is no any infirmity or any illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court and therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the present petition. He has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is in consonance with the settled principles of law and is passed after following due procedure and therefore, the same is required to be confirmed and the present petition is required to be dismissed and no interference is required to be called for while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

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. 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 Rs.3,00,000/- is required to be awarded to the respondent-workman.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13483/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined

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:-

"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 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

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 reads thus:-

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13483/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined "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 serve the ends of justice.

11. With the aforesaid conclusion, the petition stands allowed Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:45:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13483/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined in part. The impugned judgment and 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. Notice is discharged.

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) ANUSRI Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:45:58 IST 2025