Gujarat High Court
Alpesh Maheshbhai Mistry vs Sojitra Taluka Panchayat on 7 July, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/792/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 792 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9630 of 2014
==========================================================
ALPESH MAHESHBHAI MISTRY
Versus
SOJITRA TALUKA PANCHAYAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. SWAPNESHWAR GAUTAM WITH MR R G DWIVEDI(6601) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 07/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 01.08.2024 passed in Special Civil Application No. 9630 of 2014, whereby the learned Single Judge in the writ-petition filed by the respondent - Panchayat, has modified the award passed by the Labour Court dated 28.05.2013 passed in Reference (LCA) No. 68 of 2004 to the extent of awarding a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the appellant-workman to the full and final settlement.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Swapneshwar Gautam at the outset has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Single Judge requires to be quashed and set aside since the learned Single Judge has Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:02:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/792/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined modified the award of reinstatement to that of compensation, only for the reason that the matter has come up for final hearing after almost 20 years. It is submitted that the termination of the appellant-workman was in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the I.D. Act) and hence, the Labour Court has appropriately directed the reinstatement of appellant- workman with 20% backwages. Thus, it is urged that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to reinstate the appellant to his original post.
3. It is not in dispute that the appellant was engaged for 6 hours per day for 9 fixed monthly remuneration of Rs. 1,350/- and he was engaged a peon in the month of November, 2003 and was relieved on 01.05.2004, which culminated into the Industrial Dispute being Reference (LCA) No. 68 of 2004. Vide Award dated 28.05.2013, the Labour Court, Anand allowed the reference in part and directed the respondents to reinstate the appellant- workman to the original post with 20% backwages. From the facts recorded in the award, it is explicit that the appellant, in his statement of demand, has asserted that he was engaged as a peon on 26.05.2000 and orally terminated on 01.05.2004. Thus, the appellant was engaged in the monthly wages of Rs. 1,350/-, while he has rendered almost 4 years of service. The Labour Court has found the termination as illegal, however, a mere perusal of the award, we find that the Labour Court has not recorded any definite finding with regard to the violation of the provision Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:02:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/792/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. However, the Labour Court has recorded that the appellant was terminated, without issuing any notice or holding any departmental inquiry.
4. In our considered opinion, in absence of any finding with regard to the violation of provisions of the I.D Act., more particularly Sections 25 G and H of the I.D. Act the appropriate cource to be adopted was to remand the matter to the Labour Court. However, we find that the learned Single Judge has recorded that by now more than 20 years have passed, the appropriate relief which can be made available to the appellant-workman would be compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs.
5. Under the circumstance, we are not inclined to disturb the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge or by the Labour Court.
6. The Appeal fails and the same is rejected.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) (R. T. VACHHANI, J) MARY VADAKKAN//28 Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:02:32 IST 2025