Gujarat High Court
Rajkot Municipal Corporation vs Purshottambhai Bhabhabhai Jethva ... on 28 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5405/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5405 of 2024
==========================================================
RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.
Versus
PURSHOTTAMBHAI BHABHABHAI JETHVA SINCE DECD. THROUGH
LHRS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KV GADHIA(319) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS ASMITA V PATEL(5356) for the Petitioner(s) No. 2
MR PANKAJ R DESAI(3120) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 28/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 15.01.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, No.1, Rajkot in Reference (L.C.R.) Number 45 of 2015 whereby the labour Court partly allowed the reference and instead of reinstatement, awarded Rs.3,00,000/- as lumpsum compensation in favour of the workman.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was initially engaged on 25.02.1991 as a labourer and had completed 240 days of service before the alleged Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:56:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5405/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined termination, as contemplated under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter, the respondent was appointed in the Zoo Department with effect from 13.10.1992 and subsequently transferred to the Garden Department on the same day, where he claims to have served as a permanent employee and to have been paid basic pay along with medical and city allowances totalling Rs.2,779 per month.
2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent remained absent from duty for a prolonged period from 2004 to 2005 on the ground of illness and other personal reasons and though he was later placed in the Investment Department on 19.09.2005, he failed to report for duty even there. Consequently, a show-cause notice dated 02.01.2007 was issued to the respondent; however, no satisfactory reply was submitted and therefore a full- fledged departmental inquiry was held. After conclusion of the inquiry, the services of the respondent came to be terminated with effect from 03.07.2010. After almost four years from the date of termination, the respondent issued a demand notice dated 26.12.2014 and subsequently raised Reference (LCR) No. 45 of 2015 before the Labour Court, Rajkot challenging the termination order dated 03.07.2010. During pendency of the reference proceedings, the original workman - Purshottambhai Bhabhabhai Jethva - expired on 05.07.2016 and his legal Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:56:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5405/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined heirs came to be brought on record pursuant to the order passed by the Labour Court. The petitioner filed reply to the statement of claim denying all allegations and contending inter alia that the reference was barred by delay and limitation, that the termination was based on a valid departmental inquiry, that the respondent was habitual in remaining absent from services. However, without properly appreciating the material placed on record, the Labour Court passed the impugned judgment and award.
2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award the petitioner Corporation has preferred present petition.
3. Mr. K.V. Gadhia, learned counsel for the petitioner- Corporation, has contended that several instances of misconduct were reported against the present respondent-original workman, particularly relating to habitual absenteeism. He submitted that the said fact was duly established during the course of the departmental inquiry and, therefore, punishment was imposed and the respondent was removed from service.
3.1 Mr. K.V. Gadhia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the order of removal was challenged by the concerned respondent-workman after a delay of about four years. However, without considering the Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:56:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5405/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined contentions raised by the Corporation, the learned Presiding Officer passed the impugned order and awarded ₹3,00,000/- in favour of the respondent- workman, which is erroneous, illegal, and unjust.
3.2 Mr. Gadhia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has further submitted that although ample documentary evidence and relevant decisions were produced before the learned Presiding Officer, the same were not considered while deciding the matter. In the facts of the present case, the learned Presiding Officer has erroneously passed the award granting a lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, which is illegal, unjustified, and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Hemal Shah, learned counsel appearing with Mr. Pankaj Desai for the respondent- workman, has contended that the concerned workman expired during the pendency of the proceedings and that he was a regular employee of the petitioner-Corporation. Considering his tenure of service, the Labour Court has not committed any error in awarding compensation. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Officer may not be disturbed while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
4.1 Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the respondent, has Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:56:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5405/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined further contended that the observations made by the learned Presiding Officer, after considering all relevant facts, indicate that although the removal of the workman by the Corporation during the pendency of the proceedings was not interfered with, the Labour Court, considering the length of service rendered by the workman, awarded an amount of compensation. Such award is just and proper, and therefore no interference is called for.
5. I have gone through the relevant materials and documents produced on record. I have also perused and examined the impugned judgment and award passed by the labour Court.
6. Upon examining the pleadings, documentary record, oral evidence and the operative part of the award passed by the Labour Court in Reference (L.C.R.) No. 45/2015, this Court finds that the termination of the workman was in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no second show-cause notice or effective opportunity of hearing was granted and the employer failed to justify the misconduct with cogent evidence before imposing the punishment of dismissal.
7. The Labour Court has rightly observed that the past service record of the workman was unblemished and the incident in question was the first alleged misconduct Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:56:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5405/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined during a long span of service, and therefore the punishment of dismissal was grossly disproportionate and excessive in comparison with the alleged lapse. It further emerges from the record that the employer did not produce any material to establish that the workman was engaged on duty from 2005 to 2010, and in absence of such evidence the burden to justify the termination remained unfulfilled.
8. With regard to the delay of 5 years in raising the reference, the explanation tendered by the workman on account of illiteracy has been rightly accepted in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing- cum-Processing Service Society Ltd., reported in 1999 Law Suit (SC) 433, whereby the Labour Court has restricted the effect of delay only to the relief of back wages and not to the maintainability of the dispute. The record further indicates that the workman expired on 07.03.2019, and therefore the question of reinstatement does not survive, especially when the workman has already been extended the benefit of pension.
9. Considering the prolonged litigation, and the hardship suffered by the workman and his family, and in the larger interest of justice, the Labour Court has set aside the dismissal and awarded a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:56:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5405/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined and full back wages, which appears to be fair, reasonable and commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the award that would warrant interference in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 15.01.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer in Reference (L.C.R.) Number 45 of 2015 is hereby confirmed.
11. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court awarding compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the present respondent shall be complied with by the petitioner-Corporation within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said amount shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased workman, after due verification of their bank details, through RTGS/NEFT.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 20:56:00 IST 2025