Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhai Limbabhai Bamaniya vs Medical Officer on 30 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/823/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 823 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
BHARATBHAI LIMBABHAI BAMANIYA
Versus
MEDICAL OFFICER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAVKUMAR I BHOI(12030) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PRADIP J PATEL(5896) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 30/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the award passed by
learned labour court, Godhra in Reference (T) No.630 of
2006 dated 18.05.2024 whereby, the amount of
Rs.20,000/- has been awarded alongwith cost of
Rs.10,000/- instead of reinstatement with a continuity of
services, full back wages and other consequential
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/823/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
benefits.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave for the
petitioner.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that petitioner was
working as a watchman from 07.01.2000 with the
respondent-establishment and discharging his service,
despite the petitioner has completed 240 days in each
year, his services were disengaged by oral order from
22.02.2001 challenging the order passed by the
respondent-establishment terminating the services, the
dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer which
was subsequently rejected and reference being
Reference (T) No.630 of 2006.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that he was paid a
monthly wage of Rs.600/- and has continuously served
for eight hours daily and on some occasions he was also
called on holidays too. It is submitted by the learned
advocate Mr.Dave that when the learned court has
believed that the termination is illegal, instead of
awarding lump sum compensation of meager amount of
Rs.20,000/-, the award of reinstatement could have been
passed. Learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that by not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/823/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
doing same, learned court has committed error and
therefore, petition filed by the present petitioner is
required to be allowed by directing the respondent-
establishment to reinstate the service, instead of giving
lump sum compensation.
5. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate
Mr.Dave and considering the reasons assigned by the
learned court while granting lump sum compensation, it
transpires from the record that the petitioner has served
with the respondent-establishment from 07.01.2000 to
22.02.2001 and the Reference was filed after five years
delay before the learned court. Reference was awarded
in favour of the petitioner after 23 years and therefore,
considering the length of service, instead of granting the
relief of reinstatement with other benefits, learned
labour court has awarded lump sum compensation of
Rs.20,000/-. At the time of termination, the respondent
was getting wages of Rs.600/- per month, therefore, this
Court is of the view that no error is committed by the
learned labour court while awarding lump sum
compensation.
6. So far as the submission of the learned advocate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/823/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
Mr.Dave with regard to the relief of reinstatement ought
to have awarded, that when the termination is held
illegal, is concerned this Court is of the view that in
every case, the respondent would not be entitled for the
relief of reinstatement even if the termination is held
illegal and therefore, this Court is of the view that no
error is committed by the learned labour court.
7. Resultantly this petition is rejected.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
