Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat Through ... vs Poonja @ Bhikhubhai Palabhai Rathod on 7 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4840/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4840 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5107 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5106 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT GURU GOVINDSING
HOSPITAL
Versus
POONJA @ BHIKHUBHAI PALABHAI RATHOD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAVAL PARMAR, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR YOGEN PANDYA, for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/07/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since the issue raised in the these petitions are similar, they are being decided by a common judgment. The facts of Special Civil Application No.4840 of 2024 are taken for the purpose of adjudication.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Jamnagar, in Reference (T) Case No.205 of 2019, whereby the learned Labour Court directed the petitioner to pay a lump sum amount to the respondent for violation of Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the I.D. Act" for short).
Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:05:49 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4840/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined
3. At the outset, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the employee that the petition filed by the employee challenging the award of lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages came to be dismissed, and thereafter, the respondent employee did not pursue the matter any further. Consequently, the award has attained finality.
4. It is the case of the respondent workman before the learned Labour Court that the workmen were employed as ward servants for a period of four years and were being paid daily wages at the rate of Rs.50/-. It is alleged that their services were orally terminated on 30.04.2005. Challenging the said termination, the workmen raised an industrial dispute before the learned Labour Court in the year 2019, after a delay of approximately 14 years.
4.1. The learned Reference Court did not accept the reasons advanced by the workmen for the inordinate delay and held that, since there was no violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, the relief of reinstatement could not be granted. However, the learned Reference Court further observed that as the work was perennial in nature and continues to be carried out through outsourcing agencies even Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:05:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4840/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined today, there was a breach of Sections 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act. Consequently, lump sum compensation was awarded in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
5. Heard the learned AGP Mr.Dhaval Parmar for the petitioner-State and learned advocate Mr.Pandya for respondent-workmen.
6. Learned AGP Mr. Parmar submits that the learned Labour Court placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.147 of 2008, wherein compensation was granted on the ground of violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. Learned AGP Mr. Parmar further submits that, in the present case, when the learned Labour Court itself has held that there was no violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, it has committed an error in relying on the said decision and proceeding to award compensation.
6.1. Learned AGP Mr. Parmar submits that though the work was available on the date of the award, in view of the policy of the State Government, the same has been carried out through outsourcing agencies. Learned AGP Mr. Parmar further submits that the workmen themselves had earlier Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:05:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4840/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined challenged the award of lump sum compensation by filing petitions before this Court, which came to be dismissed. Therefore, in these circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with by setting aside the award of lump sum compensation.
7. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Yogen Pandya submits that the learned Reference Court has rightly considered the provisions of Sections 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act and has held that though the work was available, the respondent did not call the workmen back, thereby committing a breach of Sections 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya further submits that the present petitions have been filed only after the dismissal of the petitions filed by the employees, and that too after a delay of more than one year. Therefore, no interference is warranted, and the petitions deserve to be dismissed.
8. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it emerges from the record that the petitions filed by the workmen sought reinstatement after more than 14 years before the learned Reference Court. The details of each petition are mentioned hereinbelow:
Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:05:49 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4840/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined SCA NO. Reference No. Date of award Amount of SCA No. Award (Rs.) (Cross-
petitions) 4840 of 2024 205 of 2019 31.03.2023 25,000/- 18659 of 2023 5107 of 2024 106 of 2019 31.03.2023 20,000/- 21879 of 2023 5106 of 2023 72 of 2017 31.03.2023 10,000/- 11728 of 2023
9. It is an undisputed fact that the learned Labour Court did not accept the contention regarding the breach of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. However, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the work, which continued to be carried out through an outsourcing agency, was perennial in nature, and therefore, there was a breach of Sections 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act.
10. As the petitions challenging the impugned award dated 31.03.2023 have been filed after a delay of more than one year, and more particularly considering that the same was filed after dismissal of the petitions were filed by the employees, this Court deems it fit not to interfere with the impugned order, by which lump sum compensation has been granted in lieu of back wages.
11. Resultantly, these petitions deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:05:49 IST 2025