Gujarat High Court
Goswami Babubharthi Lalbharthi vs Gujarat Electricity Board on 17 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/921/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 921 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
GOSWAMI BABUBHARTHI LALBHARTHI & ORS.
Versus
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
REFUSED SERVED (R)(70) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 17/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1.
2. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference (LCA) Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 19 00:06:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/921/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined No.1273 of 2002 below Exh.19, whereby respondent No.2, i.e., Alpha Engineers, is directed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- within a period of 60 days or with interest at the rate of 9%.
3. It is the case of the present petitioner that the petitioners are working with respondent No.1, i.e., the contractor of respondent No.2, as Helpers in the Civil Maintenance Department for the past 11 years. Prior to the date of reference, a dispute was raised before the learned Industrial Tribunal being Reference (IT) No.259 of 1996, seeking the benefit of permanency and treatment at par with regular employees, as the contract between respondent Nos.1 and 2 was concluded on 05.02.2002. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated without following due procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as the "ID Act") on 06.02.2002, which was the subject matter of challenge before the learned Labour Court. Upon considering the evidence adduced by all the parties, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, and Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 19 00:06:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/921/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined respondent No.2 was held liable for the payment of such compensation, which is now under challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. U.T. Mishra for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave for respondent No.1, and though notice was served, it was refused by respondent No.2, i.e., Alpha Engineers, who is the contractor.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits that respondent No.2 also remained absent before the learned Reference Court, and the learned Court concluded the reference in favour of the petitioner by holding that the termination was illegal and in violation of Section 25(F) of the ID Act. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits that the learned Court did not dispute the continuity of service of 11 years; however, instead of granting the relief of reinstatement, a lump sum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was awarded as compensation. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra has relied on the decision rendered by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.908 of 2023, wherein this Court discussed the relevant period and the entitlement to compensation. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 19 00:06:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/921/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined that the impugned award deserves to be set aside in view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, and hence, the petition is required to be allowed.
6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Dave submits that, since the dispute before the learned Industrial Tribunal regarding regularization was pending, the learned Reference Court was justified in directing respondent No.2, i.e., the contractor, to pay the lump sum compensation. Learned advocate Mr. Dave further submits that, after the decision rendered by the learned Labour Court, an award was passed in favour of respondent No.1 in Reference (IT) No.259 of 1996, rejecting the relief sought for permanency by the present petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Dave submits that the said award was confirmed up to the Division Bench of this Court, and therefore, the learned Court was justified in directing respondent No.2 to pay the lump sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. Hence, no interference is required, and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 19 00:06:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/921/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined learned advocates for the respective parties, at the outset, it is required to be noted that, though notice was served, as per the affidavit of service filed by the petitioner, respondent No.2 refused to accept the same. It is an undisputed position that the petitioners are employees of respondent No.2, who is the labour supplier and had a contract with respondent No.1. The reference, being Reference (IT) No.259 of 1996, was pending before the learned Industrial Tribunal seeking the benefit of permanency, which was awarded against the present petitioner and confirmed by this Court. The contract executed between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 was terminated on 05.02.2002, and the services of the petitioner, who had served with respondent No.1 under the contract with respondent No.2 for 11 years, were terminated without following due procedure under the law. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Mishra that respondent No.2 neither complied with the order passed by this Court nor challenged the same before any higher forum. At this stage decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.908 of 2023 is Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 19 00:06:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/921/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined required to be referred, wherein this Court has observed as under: -
"Thus, while calculating the number of years of services, we proposed to deduct the number of years service for which there is delay in preferring reference. After deduction of such number of service, we propose to give compensation in the following tabular form:
Sr. Total no. of years for Amount of lump sum No. lump sum compensation compensation
1. 5 to 10 years Rs.3.00 lacs
2. 10-15 years Rs.5.00 lacs
3. 15-20 years Rs.7.5 lacs
8. Considering the above, this Court is of the view that the lump sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, which was awarded by the learned Labour Court, is required to be enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-, and respondent No.2 is directed to pay the same within a period of 30 days, or with accrued interest of 9%.
9. In view of the above, this petition is allowed with the above directions.
10. Rule is made absolute.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 19 00:06:03 IST 2025