Gujarat High Court
Manoj Keshubhai Mavdiya vs Through State Of Gujarat on 27 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7518/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7518 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
MANOJ KESHUBHAI MAVDIYA
Versus
THROUGH STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS ROSHNI PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 27/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE. Ms. Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule, for and on behalf of the respondent- State.
2. Present petition is filed by the petitioner - workman 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 20.11.2021 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamnagar (hereinafter be referred to as "the Labour Court") in Reference (LCJ) No. 53 of 2006, whereby, the learned Judge has partly allowed the Reference and awarded compensation of Rs.60,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:03:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7518/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined petitioner-workman had raised Industrial Dispute for illegal termination by the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner-workman was working since 2002 as a daily rated employee with the respondent and without any reason, his services came to be terminated orally without following due procedure and without following principles of natural justice described under the law by oral order dated 20.10.2005 and therefore, petitioner-workman had prayed for reinstatement with continuity of services and back wages before the Labour Court. That, the respondent had filed its written statement and contended that the petitioner was a daily rated employee who has been appointed without due procedure and therefore, his termination was not required to be interfered with. It was further contended that as per the government policy and direction dated 17.05.2005 such daily rated employees should immediately be discontinued to perform their duties and therefore, in compliance with government directions, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated by the respondent. That, after the evidence was laid by both the parties, the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that there was a breach of provisions of the ID Act, and termination was illegal but, ordered with the direction to pay lump- sum compensation of Rs.60,000/-, instead of reinstatement of the petitioner vide its judgment and award dated 20.11.2021.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and award dated 20.11.2021 passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (LCJ) No. 53 of 2006, the petitioner-workman has preferred this petition.
5. Heard Mr. Yogen Pandya, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner-workman and Ms. Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:03:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7518/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined Government Pleader,appearing for the respondent-State.
6. Learned counsel Mr. Pandya has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on record and the provisions of the Act and therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the petitioner-workman was employed by the respondent from the year 2002 as a ward servant and though the petitioner had completed 240 days in each calender year, the respondent had neither issue identity card nor was allowed to mark presence in the Register nor the respondent was issuing any salary slip and on 20.10.2005, without any fault on the part of the petitioner-workman, the petition was relieved from the services without following any procedure under Section 25(F) of the Act. He has submitted that the petitioner-workman had also produced relevant documentary evidence, which clearly established that the petitioner-workman had worked with the respondent, however, the Labour Court has not considered this aspect while passing the impugned judgment and award and granted lumpsum compensation of Rs.60,000/- in lieu of reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages. Learned counsel Mr. Pandya 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.
7. As against that, learned AGP Ms. Roshni Patel, appearing for the respondent-State 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 Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:03:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7518/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined interference is required to be called for in the present petition. She has submitted that the petitioner-workman had not completed 240 days in each calender year and he had worked only for 223 days in all the three years of his service with the respondent from 2002 to 2005. Though no affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondent-State before this Court, learned AGP Ms. Patel has submitted that the respondent had filed its reply before the Labour Court, wherein it was pointed out in detail that the petitioner-workman was relieved after the issuance of Government Resolution dated 16.05.2005, wherein, for the administrative reasons, the State Government had directed all the establishments not to appoint any person as a daily wager, however, prior thereto, the petitioner-workman had not completed 240 days in any of the calender year from 2002 to 2005. She has further submitted that the Labour Court has observed in para-15 of the impugned judgment and award that though sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner-workman, the petitioner-workman has failed to establish his case and therefore, after considering relevant materials and after considering the arguments and the records, the Labour Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award. She has submitted that now almost 20 years have been passed after retrenchment and there is no question of reinstatement and therefore, under such circumstance, no interference is required to be called for in the present petition and the present petition be dismissed.
8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court. It appears from the record that the petitioner-workman has earlier also approached this Court by way of filing petition being Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:03:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7518/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined Special Civil Application No. 18603 of 2018 as his Reference was dismissed for want of prosecution, wherein this Court, after considering the facts of the case, had allowed the said petition vide order dated 16.07.2021 and remanded the matter back to the concerned Labour Court and restored the Reference preferred by the petitioner-workman. Relevant observations made in para-8, which reads as under :
"[8.0.] Hence, the petition stands allowed in aforesaid terms. The impugned judgment and award dated 31.07.2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Court No.2, Jamnagar, in Reference (L.C.J.) No. 53 of 2006, is hereby quashed and set aside and the case is remanded back to the Labour Court for a decision as aforesaid. The Labour Court shall proceed further from the stage where it left, permitting cross-examination of the petitioner to be conducted by the respondents and affording opportunity to both the sides to lead evidence from that stage further."
8.1 However, 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.1.50 Lac, instead of Rs.60,000/- as awarded by the Labour Court.
9. In the result, the present petition is partly allowed. The amount of lump sum compensation is enhanced to Rs.1.50 Lac. The respondent is 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 Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:03:02 IST 2025