Gujarat High Court
Hirabhai Kalabhai Damor vs Range Forest Officer on 4 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13700/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13700 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18091 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
================================================================
HIRABHAI KALABHAI DAMOR
Versus
RANGE FOREST OFFICER
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PARESH J BRAHMBHATT(9788) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS AGNEYA MANKAD AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 04/05/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petitions impugn the award dated 30.12.2020 in Reference (T) No.47 of 2014. The Special Civil Application No.13700 of 2021 is preferred by the petitioner workman and the Special Civil Application No.18091 of 2021 has been preferred by the respondent State of Gujarat. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the cause title in Special Civil Application No.13700 of 2021.
2. It is the case of the petitioner workman that he was appointed as a Rojamdar / Watchman on 01.05.2001 on monthly wage of Rs.2,000/-. It is further the case that by oral order dated 01.07.2013, the service of the petitioner workman came to be terminated by the respondent Range Forest Officer. Aggrieved, the petitioner workman had raised a dispute before the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner, Godhra, who by Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 03:15:36 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13700/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined communication dated 27.03.2014 has made a reference to the learned Labour Court, which has culminated in Reference (T) No.47 of 2014. By the common impugned award, the learned Labour Court has upheld the oral termination of the petitioner workman as illegal. However, instead of granting reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages, the learned Labour Court has granted lump sum compensation of Rs.1,98,000/- to the petitioner workman.
Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the Special Civil Application No.13700 of 2021.
3. The respondent State of Gujarat has preferred the Special Civil Application No.18091 of 2021 challenging the grant of lump sum compensation on the ground that there is no evidence brought on record to show that the petitioner workman has continuously worked for such a long period of time and therefore, he was not entitled for such lump sum compensation.
4. This Court on 06.12.2021, passed the following order :-
"1. On 27.10.2021, this Court had passed the following order:-
"Though served, the respondent has not appeared either in person or through an advocate.
As a last chance, the matter is kept on 06.12.2021."
2. Today also, no appearance has been filed by the respondent-Range Forest Officer.
3. Learned AGP Mr.Adityasinh Jadeja requests for some time in order to represent properly.
4. Since despite service of notice and the order dated 27.10.2021, the respondent has chosen not to enter his appearance, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service on or before the next date of Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 03:15:36 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13700/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined hearing. It is clarified that, his reinstatement shall be subject to further affidavit, if any filed by the respondent authorities.
5. The matter is kept on 24.12.2021. Direct service is permitted."
4.1 Thereafter on 24.12.2021, following order was passed:-
"1. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 06.12.2021, the Range Forest Officer, Khanpur has passed an order dated 24.12.2021 reinstating the petitioner in service, till final disposal of the petition. The same is ordered to be taken on record.
2. The petitioner is directed to report for duty within a period of 24 hours as stated in the aforesaid order.
3. It is clarified that the reinstatement shall be subject to the further orders passed by this Court.
4. It is further clarified that if the petitioner - Hirabhai Kalabhai Damor does not report for duty within a period of 24 hours, as ordered by the Range Forest Officer, the order dated 24.12.2021 will lapse.
The matter is kept on 07.03.2022."
4.2 Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid orders, it is not in dispute that the petitioner workman is reinstated in service and working with the respondent since 24.12.2021 till date.
5. By the impugned award, it has been held that the oral termination of the petitioner workman was in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ["ID Act" for short] and the said oral termination has been held to be illegal. It has been further held that the petitioner workman has stated in his deposition that he has worked for 240 days in each year and in view thereof, he has worked for a long period of more than 12 years with the respondent. The petitioner workman further Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 03:15:36 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13700/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined deposed that no any document was ever given to the petitioner workman by the respondent State. In his cross examination, nothing contrary has come out. The respondent State has produced on record few documents with respect to certain statement showing that the petitioner workman has worked intermittently with the respondent from January 2002 till September 2012 and some payment vouchers have also been produced on record. It has been further observed that pending the reference proceedings, the learned Labour Court had directed the respondent State to produce on record the attendance register as well as pay register in respect of the petitioner workman. However, despite such order, the respondent has failed to produce the same on record. The relevant documents are in possession of the respondent. In view of the deposition of the petitioner and the conduct of the respondent, the learned Labour Court has drawn adverse inference against the respondent and has held that the petitioner workman was in continuous service of the respondent for the period from 01.05.2001 to 01.07.2013.
6. The above mentioned findings of the learned Labour Court in the impugned award are not controverted by the respondent by way of any cogent documentary evidence on record neither before the learned Labour Court nor before this Court in the present writ petitions. Accordingly, the said findings of the learned Labour Court are required to be upheld and no interference is called for. The findings are based on evidence on record and by assigning cogent reasons.
7. That the petitioner workman has been reinstated in service Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 03:15:36 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13700/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined vide orders passed by this Court and is in service till date. The petitioner workman is continuously working for more than six years after his reinstatement. The petitioner workman has also continuously worked from 01.05.2001 to 01.07.2013 for a period of more than 12 years prior to his termination and now for a period of more than 6 years after his reinstatement. In view of the length of service rendered by the petitioner workman, the impugned award dated 30.12.2020 is required to be modified in the considered opinion of this Court. Accordingly, the petitioner workman is required to be granted reinstatement with continuity of service in lieu of lump sum compensation as awarded by the learned Labour Court. The impugned award stands modified accordingly. The petitioner workman is directed to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. The learned counsel for the petitioner workman fairly submits that the petitioner undertakes to forego the back wages for the period from his date of termination till his reinstatement. The oral undertaking is taken on record. Accordingly, the impugned award stands modified to the aforesaid extent.
For the aforesaid reasons and observations, the Special Civil Application No.13700 of 2021 stands partly allowed and Special Civil Application No.18091 of 2021 stands dismissed.
In Special Civil Application No.13700 of 2021 rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent and rule is discharged in Special Civil Application No.18091 of 2021. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN(HC00197) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 03:15:36 IST 2026