Gujarat High Court
Deputy Forest Officer vs Dhanabhai Palabhai Chavda on 24 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6627/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6627 of 2024
================================================================
DEPUTY FOREST OFFICER & ANR.
Versus
DHANABHAI PALABHAI CHAVDA
================================================================
Appearance:
MS SWEETY SAMARA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 24/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner - State of Gujarat 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 impugned judgment and award dated 31.03.2023 passed by the learned Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (T.) No. 100 of 2017, whereby, the learned Judge has partly allowed the Reference preferred by the respondent-workman by granting 10% backwages of last drawn salary with backwages and continuity of service.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the respondent-workman was working as an un-skilled labourer (Chokidar) with the petitioner herein from 01.11.2002 and was drawing wages of Rs.5000/- per month. That, his services came to be terminated orally on 01.06.2017. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent- workman filed claim statement before the Labour Court, which was opposed by the petitioner by filing written statement. That, the Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:18:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6627/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined respondent-workman was working with Petitioner as un-skilled labour and he had not worked for 240 days in previous year. That, the work assign to the respondent-workman was on the basis of grants issued. That, no sanctioned post of Chokidar was available in the sanction set-up, for which documents were produced before the Labour Court showing sanction set-up of organization, however, the Labour Court partly allowed the Reference preferred by the respondent-workman by granting 10% back wages of last drawn salary with back wages and continuity service vide award dated 31.03.2023.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and award dated 31.03.2023 passed by the learned Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (T.) No. 100 of 2017, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
4. Heard Ms. Sweety Samara, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Yogen Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman.
5. Learned AGP Ms. Samara has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is erroneous, illegal and contrary to the facts and records of the case. She has submitted that the Labour Court has not considered the fact that the work was based on the grant issued by the Higher Authority and there was no permanent work available. She has submitted that the petitioner had also produced documents showing grants issued by the Higher Authority from the period of 2012-2015, however, without considering the aforesaid fact, the Labour Court has granted reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service to the respondent-workman which is illegal, erroneous and without proper apprehension of evidence. She has submitted that the Labour Court has not Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:18:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6627/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined considered the fact that there was no sanctioned post available and to support that contention the Authority had produced documents showing sanctioned set-up of petitioner, however, the same was not considering by the Labour Court and therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court is erroneous, illegal and unjust. She has submitted that the Labour Court has not considered the fact that the respondent-workman had not worked for 240 days in a given year and therefore, there is no violation of provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. She has submitted that the respondent-workman had not produced any documents before the Labour Court to show that he had completed 240 days. Learned AGP Ms. Samara has therefore, 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. Yogen Pandya, appearing for the respondent-workman, has opposed the present petition and 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. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:18:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6627/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined considered the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court. It appears from the record that at the time of admission, this Court had issued notice vide order dated 24.04.2024 and thereafter, an application under Section 17(B) of the Act was preferred by the respondent-workman, which came to be decided by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 19.11.2024 and thereby, the respondent- workman was reinstated at his original post. So far as 10% backwages granted by the Labour Court is concerned, considering the fact that the amount is a very meager amount, on the ground of smallness of amount, this Court deems it fit not to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. So far as the reinstatement is concerned, the respondent-workman is already reinstated and right now he is working with the petitioner establishment, the same shall not be disturbed. So far as the backwages is concerned, no interference is required to be called for in the present petition.
8. In the result, present petition being devoid of any merits, deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.
8.1 It is observed that the order passed by this Court shall not disturb in future unless and until, after following due procedure, the respondent-workman's service conditions shall not be changed without giving any opportunity to the respondent-workman.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:18:59 IST 2025