Gujarat High Court
Deputy Executive Engineer vs Manishbhai Arjanbhai Makwana on 22 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14275/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14275 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11015 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14331 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10997 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Versus
MANISHBHAI ARJANBHAI MAKWANA
==========================================================
Appearance in Special Civil Application No. 14275 and 14331 of 2024
MS DIXA PANDYA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1
MS HARSHAL N PANDYA(3141) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Appearance in Special Civil Application No. 11015 and 10997 of 2025
MS HARSHAL N PANDYA(3141) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS DIXA PANDYA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 22/09/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1 Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate as well as learned AGP Ms.Pandya waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents in respective petitions.
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 00:16:03 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14275/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined 2 The present petitions are filed challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajkot, whereby a lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,30,001/- in Reference (LCR) No.81 of 2017 and Rs.51,001/- in Reference (LCR) No.82 of 2017 has been awarded.
3 It is the case of the petitioner-State, being the employer, that the dispute was raised before the learned Labour Court seeking reinstatement along with all consequential benefits, which came to be referred for adjudication. The learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence, partly allowed the Reference in favour of the employee. The said award is under challenge at the instance of the employer in Special Civil Application Nos.14275 of 2024 and 14331 of 2024, and at the instance of the employee in Special Civil Application Nos.11015 of 2025 and 14331 of 2024.
4 Heard the learned AGP Ms. Dixa Pandya and learned advocate Ms.Harshal Pandya for the respective parties.
5 Learned AGP Ms. Pandya submits that though the case of the State is that the respondent did not work even for a single day, more particularly during the period mentioned in the Statement of Claim i.e. from 2011 to 2013, the respondent, by alleging illegal Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 00:16:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14275/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined termination, raised the dispute. Learned AGP Ms. Pandya further submits that the learned Labour Court, by drawing an adverse inference against the workman, has granted lump-sum compensation in favour of the respondent, which is contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside.
5.1 Learned AGP Ms.Pandya submits that the dispute was raised after the delay of four years in Reference (LCR) No.81 of 2017 and after 14 years in Reference (LCR) No.82 of 2017 and therefore also the impugned award deserves to be set aside and the petition is required to be allowed.
6 Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Pandya submits that though an application was filed seeking production of documentary evidence, which came to be allowed on 19.08.2023, instead of producing the documents pertaining to the period from 2011 to 2013, the employer has produced the attendance register for the period from 1996 to 1999. It is submitted by learned advocate Ms. Pandya that though there is a delay in filing the Reference, once the learned Court has found that the order of termination is illegal, the relief can be molded by awarding reasonable compensation. However, by Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 00:16:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14275/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined awarding only a meager amount of compensation, the learned Court has committed an error, and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
7 Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it emerges from the record that the Reference being LCR No.81 of 2017 came to be filed claiming that the employee was working at Dam Canal as a labourer from 01.03.2011 to 30.09.2013 and that his services were terminated on 30.09.2013. Seeking reinstatement, the dispute was raised after a period of four years, i.e., on 19.12.2017. In the Reference being LCR No.82 of 2017, the dispute was raised by the concerned employee alleging continuous service from 01.03.2000 to 30.09.2003 and termination on 30.09.2003, with the Reference being filed after 14 years, i.e., on 19.12.2017. The learned Court has recorded in the award that though the References were filed after a delay of 04 years and 14 years respectively, even thereafter, there was further delay in filing the statement of claim by 03 years and in leading evidence by way of chief examination after 02 years. An application below Exhibit 8 also came to be filed by the employee seeking production of documentary evidence in the nature of the wage Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 00:16:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14275/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined register and attendance register for the period between 2011 to 2013.
7.1 The affidavit came to be filed in compliance with the order passed in the production application stating that from 1999 onwards there was a ban on the muster roll system and, therefore, after 03.01.2000 no muster roll was maintained. However, the attendance sheet for the period from 1996 to 1999, under the signature of the Deputy Executive Engineer, was produced. Admittedly, the documents which were specifically sought for the period between 2011 to 2013 were not produced, but instead, irrelevant documents, not directed by the learned Court, were filed. During the cross- examination of the employer's witness, it was admitted that the attendance was recorded on the attendance sheet whenever the daily wagers came for work. Though it was contended by the learned AGP that the employee had not worked even for a single day, from the written statement it transpires that in the Irrigation Department, as and when work was available, the employees were called and had worked during the interregnum period.
8 In the opinion of this Court, when the relevant documents, though specifically directed by the Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 00:16:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14275/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined learned Labour Court, have been withheld, no error can be said to have been committed by the learned Labour Court in drawing an adverse inference and granting relief in favour of the concerned workman. In this background, the petitions filed by the employer deserve to be rejected.
9 So far as the claim for enhancement made in the petitions filed by the concerned employees is concerned, as noted hereinabove, the disputes were raised before the learned Labour Court after an unexplained delay of 04 years and 14 years respectively, and even thereafter the concerned workmen were not vigilant in prosecuting the proceedings, as the learned labour Court has observed in the impugned award that after Reference was filed the statement of claim was filed by the delay of 03 years and after the written statement was filed the chief examination was submitted after 02 years. In this background, no error can be said to have been committed by the learned Labour Court in awarding lump-sum compensation. Hence, the petitions deserve to be dismissed.
10 Resultnatly, these petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 00:16:03 IST 2025