Gujarat High Court
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Maheshkumar Govindbhai ... on 12 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/461/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 461 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Versus
MAHESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI MAKWANA(DECEASED) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 12/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate
Mr.U.T.Mishra waives notice of Rule on behalf of the
respondent.
2. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner
challenges the award dated 31.05.2019 passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/461/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
learned Labour Court, directing the petitioner to
reinstate the respondent with 20% back wages from
01.01.2019 till the date of reinstatement. It is further
observed in the said award that no benefits shall be
granted to the respondent for the interregnum period.
3. It is the case of the present petitioner that the
respondent was employed as a Daily Wager in the
Garden Department of the Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation from 13.01.1997 to 01.09.1999. After a
delay of seven years, the respondent raised an industrial
dispute alleging illegal termination w.e.f. 01.09.1999
and sought reinstatement with all consequential
benefits. The learned Labour Court, by its award dated
13.05.2014, rejected the reference on the ground that
the respondent had not completed 240 days of
continuous service, and therefore, failed to establish a
violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. The said order was passed on 13.05.2014, which
was challenged before this Court by way of filing the
writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 1440 of
2015 wherein, this Court has upheld the finding with
regard to the violation of section 25(F) of the ID Act and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/461/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
has remanded back to learned Labour Court to examine
the case with regard to the violation of section 25(G) of
the ID Act. Upon remand, the learned Labour Court
reconsidered the matter and vide award dated
31.05.2019, held that there was a violation of Section
25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act and accordingly
directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with
20% back wages from 01.01.2019 till the actual date of
reinstatement. The learned Labour Court further
observed that the respondent shall not be entitled to any
benefits for the interregnum period from the date of
termination till 31.12.2018. It is pertinent to note that
the respondent expired on 23.12.2018, prior to the date
from which back wages were directed to be paid.
Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner-employer challenging the award dated
31.05.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the
petitioner Corporation and learned advocate
Mr.U.T.Mishra for the respondent.
5. Learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw, appearing for the
petitioner, submits that the learned Labour Court has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/461/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
committed a grave error in allowing the reference in
favour of the respondent by disregarding the significant
issue of delay of nearly eight years. Learned advocate
Mr.Munshaw submits that that the learned Labour
Court, in the earlier round of litigation, had rightly held
that there was no violation of Section 25(F) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the said finding was
duly upheld by this Court in Special Civil Application No.
1440 of 2015. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits
that learned Labour Court has erroneously concluded
that there was a breach of Section 25(G) of the Act.
Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that in arriving
at this finding, the learned Labour Court has relied upon
certain termination orders passed in respect of other
employees, which were issued subsequent to the
termination of the present respondent. Learned
advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that in any cases, as the
respondent dies on 23.12.2018, therefore, the
respondent would not be entitled for any relief and in
that background the petition is required to be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Mishra, appearing for
the respondent, submits that on the date of the award,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/461/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
the respondent was approximately 48 years of age and
was suffering from tongue cancer. Learned advocate
Mr.Mishra submits that the respondent unfortunately
passed away before he could be reinstated in service
pursuant to the award. In light of these circumstances,
learned advocate Mr. Mishra urges this Court to
consider awarding a lump sum compensation in lieu of
reinstatement and back wages, in the interest of justice.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties and upon
perusal of the material on record, it emerges that the
impugned award has not been challenged by the
respondent by way of a petition before this Court. It is
further noted that the finding of the learned Labour
Court in the earlier round of litigation, that there was no
violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, was upheld by this Court in Special Civil
Application No. 1440 of 2015 filed by the workman.
Therefore, the only issue that falls for consideration in
the present petition is whether the finding of the learned
Labour Court regarding violation of Section 25(G) of the
Act is just, proper. From the record, it is evident that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/461/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
learned Labour Court has recorded the list of employees
who were junior to the respondent and whose services
were terminated after the termination of the respondent.
Specific references in this regard are found at pages 56
to 58 of the impugned award. The petitioner, despite
maintaining a seniority list, failed to adhere to it while
effecting the termination, and the said list was also
produced before the learned Labour Court. In the
considered opinion of this Court, the learned Labour
Court has committed no error in arriving at the
conclusion that there was a breach of Section 25(G) of
the Act and in awarding reinstatement accordingly.
However, it is also an undisputed fact that the learned
Labour Court directed payment of 20% back wages with
effect from 01.01.2019, whereas the respondent had
unfortunately expired on 23.12.2018. Considering this
factual scenario, coupled with the circumstance that the
respondent was suffering from tongue cancer, this Court
is of the view that the ends of justice would be met by
awarding a lump sum compensation in lieu of
reinstatement and back wages. Accordingly, a sum of
₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) is awarded to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/461/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
legal heirs of the deceased respondent towards full and
final settlement of the claim arising out of the impugned
award dated 31.05.2019.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is partly
allowed. The petitioner is directed to pay the lump sum
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)
to the legal heirs of the deceased workman. The said
amount shall be paid preferably within a period of 12
(twelve) weeks from the date of this order.
9. Resultantly this petition is partly allowed.
10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
