Gujarat High Court
Naresh Ishwarbhai Parmar vs Chairman, Oil And Natural Gas ... on 4 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6703/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6703 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
NARESH ISHWARBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
Versus
CHAIRMAN, OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Petitioner(s) No. 11,8
MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY(1060) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11.1,11.2,11.3,11.4,12,2,3,4,5,6,7,8.1,9
MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MRS KALPANA K RAVAL(1046) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 04/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent.
2. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order passed Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 04 22:59:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6703/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Ahmedabad, in Reference (CGIT) No. 147 of 2006, whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the present respondent to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential benefits.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Prabhakar Upadhyay for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval for the petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay submits that during the pendency of the present petition, all the petitioners have attained the age of superannuation, and therefore, the question of granting reinstatement does not arise. Learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay further submits that, considering the petitioners' four years of service, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court is inadequate and requires enhancement. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned award deserves to be set aside and the present petition be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Raval submits that the learned Reference Court, after duly considering all Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 04 22:59:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6703/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined relevant aspects, has awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, which has not been challenged by the respondent-employer. Therefore, the amount so awarded is just, fair, and reasonable, warranting no interference by this Court. It is, accordingly, prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, and upon perusal of the record, it emerges that the order of termination was passed by the respondent-employer in the year 1988. It is an undisputed fact that, during the pendency of the present petition, all the petitioners have attained the age of superannuation. The record further reveals that, challenging the said order of termination, the petitioners had earlier preferred a writ petition before this Court, being Special Civil Application No. 7200 of 1988, which came to be dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 05.08.1988 on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. Subsequently impugned reference came to be filed, seeking reinstatement. However, the learned Reference Court, after due consideration, has awarded a lump sum Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 04 22:59:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6703/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential benefits. This Court has also taken note of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023, wherein it has been held as under: --
"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. Total no. of years for Amount of lump sum No. 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
7. Considering the facts of the case as well as the decision rendered by the Division Bench, this Court is of the opinion that if the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court is enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/-, the ends of justice would be adequately met.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is partly allowed. The lump sum compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court is hereby enhanced to Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 04 22:59:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6703/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025 undefined Rs.2,00,000/-. Any amount already paid by the respondent-employer shall be duly adjusted, and the balance amount shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from today.
9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 04 22:59:03 IST 2025