Gujarat High Court
Alkeshkumar Mulshankar Joshi vs Chief Officer, Palanpur Nagar Palika on 13 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20480/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20480 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
ALKESHKUMAR MULSHANKAR JOSHI
Versus
CHIEF OFFICER, PALANPUR NAGAR PALIKA & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYA A TRIVEDI(11736) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR BHUNESH C RUPERA(3896) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ANKIT Y BACHANI(5424) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 13/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE. Learned counsel Mr. Ankit Bachani, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondents.
2. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act") challenging the judgment and award dated 06.09.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Palanpur (hereinafter be referred to as "the Labour Court") in Reference (LCP) No. 15 of 2017, whereby, the learned Judge has partly allowed the Reference filed by the petitioner and awarded lump sum compensation to the tune of Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:20:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20480/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined Rs.25,000/- towards final settlement.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the petitioner was appointed as a peon from 01.01.1995 and was performing his services sincerely and honestly. That, all of sudden, on 27.11.2006, the petitioner came to be terminated by oral order without giving notice, notice pay or opportunity of hearing. That, the petitioner had filed a statement of claim against the respondent dated 25.09.2017, in which it was stated that petitioner was appointed as a peon from 01.01.1995 and was performing his services sincerely and honestly, however, all of sudden, on 27.11.2006, (after 12 years of continuous service) the petitioner came to be terminated by oral order without giving notice, notice pay or opportunity of hearing. That, petitioner also made an application on 30.12.2017 for production of documents and ask to produce documents i.e (1) Attendance register, Salary register/salary slip from 01.01.1995 to 27.11.2006 and also (2) Seniority list from 2001 to 2017 in which respondent Nagarpalika filed reply, the said application was rejected by the learned Presiding Officer vide order dated 27.09.2019. That, on 22.12.2017 respondent filed reply in which respondent Nagarpalika had denied all the contentions taken by the petitioner. That, petitioner gave his deposition below Exh.-15, wherein, the petitioner had clearly stated that he had worked from 01.01.1995 to 27.11.2006. It was further stated that the petitioner was working sincerely and had worked for 240 days in every year. That, petitioner was removed from the work by respondents without following the principles of natural justice and grudge was kept on petitioner. That, below Exh.-17, one Mr. Sanjaykumar Vyas on behalf of the respondent Nagarpalika gave his deposition. That, below Exh.-20, the respondent Nagarpalika filed a written argument wherein, the respondent relied upon certain Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:20:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20480/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined judgments of High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court to support their arguments. That, the Labour Court passed an impugned award dated 06.09.2023 in Reference (LCP) No. 15 of 2017 whereby, the Labour Court partly allowed the reference filed by the petitioner and the Labour Court has come to the conclusion in the operative part that the oral termination dated 27.11.2006 was held to be illegal. Instead of giving reinstatement, the Labour Court awarded the petitioner with a lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs. 25, 000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards final settlement and directed the Respondent Nagarpalika to pay the lump sum compensation within 90 days and if the Nagarpalika fails to pay within the abovementioned time period, then the Nagarpalika was bound to pay 6% interest on the amount of lump sum compensation and further awarded Rs. 3,000 towards the costs of the litigation.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 06.09.2023 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCP) No. 15 of 2017, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
5. Heard Mr. Bhunesh Rupera, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ankit Bachani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. Learned counsel Mr. Rupera has submitted that the services of the petitioner were terminated after almost 11 years, however, the Labour Court has passed the impugned award without considering the facts of the case and without considering the records of the case and thus the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:20:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20480/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined is erroneous, illegal and unjust. Learned counsel Mr. Rupera has referred and relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023 and other allied matters, more particularly the observations made in paras-7, 10 and 11 and urged that appropriate orders of enhancement of compensation be passed. He has further submitted that the Labour Court has observed in the impugned award that the workman has preferred the reference after almost 11 years from the date of his termination i.e. the workman was terminated in the year 1995 and the reference was filed in the year 2006 and therefore, considering the observations made by the Division Bench in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal No.908 of 2023, appropriate orders be passed for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
7. As against that, learned counsel Mr. Ankit Bachani, appearing on behalf of the respondents, was unable to controvert the observations made by the Division Bench and submitted that appropriate orders may be passed.
8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. In view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal No.908 of 2023 and other allied matters referring the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paras-8.1 to 8.6 and ultimately, conclusion rendered in paras-10 and 11, the present petition is required to be partly allowed and the amount of compensation is required to be enhanced to Rs.1.25 Lac, instead of Rs.25,000/- as awarded by the Labour Court.
9. In the result, the present petition is partly allowed. The amount Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:20:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20480/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined of lump sum compensation is enhanced to Rs.1.25 Lac. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of lump sum compensation within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of order of this Court. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:20:59 IST 2025