Gujarat High Court
Sara Gram Panchayat Through Sarpanch vs Abdulbhai Daudbhai on 21 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15385/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15385 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20030 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
SARA GRAM PANCHAYAT THROUGH SARPANCH
Versus
ABDULBHAI DAUDBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NILESH M SHAH(780) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 21/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These petitions are filed by the employer as well as the
employee, challenging the award passed by the learned Labour
Court, Surendranagar, in Reference (LCS) No.26 of 2018, whereby
the employer was directed to reinstate the employee with 25%
back wages.
2. The gist of the case is that the employee was engaged on a
daily-wage basis since 09.09.1999 as a water supplier to the
Panchayat. It is the case of the employee before the learned
1 of 4
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15385/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
Reference Court that after serving for more than 18 years, his
service was disengaged on 14.03.2018 without following due
procedure under the Act. Requesting to be reinstated, notice was
issued on 17.03.2018; however, his request was not accepted and
therefore, a reference was filed claiming the relief of
reinstatement along with consequential benefits and 100% back
wages. The learned Reference Court, on holding the termination
illegal, has awarded the relief of reinstatement as well as on
considering the agricultural income which was admitted by the
employee, granted 25% back wages, which is the subject matter
of challenge before this Court by both the parties.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Munshaw for the employer and
learned advocate Mr. Shah for the employee.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw for the employer submits
that the respondent's work was not satisfactory, various
complaints were received from the villagers and therefore, a
show-cause notice was also issued. Subsequently, the dismissal
order was passed. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw submits that
as there is no sanctioned vacant post available in the sanctioned
set-up, therefore, the learned Court has committed an error in
2 of 4
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15385/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
granting the relief of reinstatement and therefore, learned
advocate Mr. Munshaw submits that the impugned award be set
aside by allowing the petition filed by the employer.
5. Per Contra, learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that as
the termination was made without following due procedure of
the Act and with regard to the so-called irregularities, no
departmental inquiry was initiated, neither was any opportunity
given to offer an explanation, the learned Court was justifying in
awarding the reinstatement. Learned advocate Mr. Shah submits
that when the learned Court held the termination to be illegal,
then it ought to have awarded the back wages at 100%; however,
25% back wages were awarded. Therefore, a prayer was made to
enhance the back wages up to 100%.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned
advocates for the respective parties, it emerges from the record
that the employee had served with the employer for more than
18 years and the termination order was passed on 14.03.2018. As
per the case of the employer, the employee was serving as a
Motor Operator and he was irregular in doing his work, as there
were various complaints received for irregularities. His service
3 of 4
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15385/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
was terminated as per the contention of the employer. However,
undisputably, the termination was without holding any
departmental inquiry or without following the principles of
natural justice, as the termination was passed dehors the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. As, in the considered
opinion of this Court, no error has been committed by the
learned Reference Court in awarding the reinstatement and at
the same time, from the evidence of the employee, it comes on
record that he was doing agricultural work and had agricultural
land, on considering the same, the learned Reference Court has
awarded 25% back wages, which, in the opinion of this Court, is
just and proper. Hence, the present petitions deserve to be
dismissed.
7. Resultantly, the present petitions are dismissed. Notice is
discharged accordingly.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
Vikramsinh Amarsinh
4 of 4
