Gujarat High Court
Ashokbhai Dahyabhai Raval (Deceased) vs Specified Area Officer, Chhatral Gidc on 10 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3308/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3308 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
ASHOKBHAI DAHYABHAI RAVAL (DECEASED) & ORS.
Versus
SPECIFIED AREA OFFICER, CHHATRAL GIDC & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
JIGNESHKUMAR M NAYAK(8558) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 10/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by learned Labour Court, Kalol in reference LCK No.268 of 2005 dated 29.04.2019 qua not granting the 100% back wages when the relief of reinstatement was granted.
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:33:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3308/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the deceased workman was serving as a peon since last 35 months before the date of termination and was getting monthly wages of Rs.3,000/-. As the employer has not provided the legal rights for which he was entitled, on demanding the same, the deceased workman was terminated from the service on 24.08.2005. Challenging the oral order of termination, the dispute was raised before the learned Labour Commissioner which was referred to the learned Labour Court for deciding that whether the deceased workman is entitled for the relief of reinstatement with all the consequential benefits. On raising the dispute before the learned Labour Court though respondents appeared, however, has not adduced any evidence neither had cross-examined the deceased workman therefore, the learned reference court has awarded the reference in favour of the deceased workman by granting the relief of reinstatement with 10% back wages. Aggrieved by the grant of the back wages to the extent of 10% only, the present petition is filed. 2.1. It emerges from the record that this Court has issued the notice on 06.02.2020 to the respondent however, Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:33:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3308/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined respondent chose not to appear before this Court. Thereafter, as the workman passed away therefore, application for bringing legal heirs was filed and in the said application also despite Rule was issued and it was served, respondent fails to appear before this Court. Thereafter, in the present petition, vide its order dated 11.10.2024, this Court has issued Rule which was reported to have been served to the respondent employer on 28.11.2024, no one has represented the respondent either in person or through an advocate. In that background, this Court has proceeded to examine the case of the petitioner with regard to grant of back wages.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Naik for the petitioner. 3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Naik submits that after declaring unemployment, during the period starting from the date of termination till the date of award, no evidence was adduced neither any rebuttal was made by the respondent to controvert the facts stated by the petitioner in the statement of claim as well as in the chief-examination. Learned advocate Mr.Naik submits that only on presuming that for such a long time no one Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:33:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3308/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined would remain unemployed the learned Labour Court has awarded 10% back wages instead of granting 100% back wages and in that background the impugned award requires to be modified to the extent of 100% back wages and the petition is required to be allowed.
4. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocate Mr.Naik and on referring the reasons assigned by the learned Court, it emerges that after the termination was held illegal the learned Court has proceeded to examine the case with regard to grant of relief as claimed by the deceased workman. Learned Court has awarded the relief of reinstatement with back wages to the extent of 10% while observing that after declaring unemployment the reference was filed in the year 2005 and statement of claim was filed in the year 2017. It is observed by the learned Court that for such a long period, the deceased workman remained unemployed and that fact cannot be believed and on presuming the same, learned Court has awarded the relief of 10% back wages with reinstatement. During the pendency of the petition, the deceased workman passed away on 29.04.2021. Therefore, no question regarding Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:33:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3308/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined reinstatement arises for adjudication before this Court. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Naik that the impugned award has not been challenged by the respondent employer, however, the same has not been complied also. This Court is of the view that when the petitioner has declared on oath that after termination of service he could not procure another job despite making sincere efforts, the burden would shift on the employer to rebut the same by adducing the evidence or by cross- examining the workman. When the declaration which was made on oath during the chief-examination has remained unchallenged, then in the opinion of this Court, learned Court ought to have granted the relief of 50% back wages instead of 10% back wages. As observed by the learned Court that after filing of the statement of claim in the year 2005, the chief- examination was submitted in the year 2017, therefore, ends of justice would meet if the 50% back wages would be awarded instead of 10%.
5. Resultantly, the impugned award is modified to the extent of grant of 50% back wages and petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:33:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3308/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined above extent.
6. Direct service is permitted.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) ARCHANA S. PILLAI Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:33:31 IST 2025