Gujarat High Court
Gram Panchayat Mahuliya vs Govindbhai Gulabhai Patel on 29 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10261/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10261 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
GRAM PANCHAYAT MAHULIYA
Versus
GOVINDBHAI GULABHAI PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UM SHASTRI(830) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 29/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging the award dated
03.10.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court,
Godhra in Reference (T) No. 67 of 2009, whereby the
petitioner has been directed to pay a lump sum
compensation of ₹50,000/- to the respondent
workman.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10261/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
industrial dispute was raised before the learned
Labour Court, Godhra, against the petitioner and the
Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sewerage
Board. It was alleged by the respondent workman
that he was engaged as a Helper with the petitioner
from 03.12.2002 and was receiving a monthly salary
of ₹3,750/-. He further claimed that he was working
for more than eight hours a day and had completed
240 days of service in each calendar year. However,
his services were abruptly terminated on 18.08.2007
without following the due process as prescribed
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2.1. The petitioner appeared before the learned
Labour Court and submitted that the respondent
workman was, in fact, engaged by respondent
No.2 and that the wages paid to him were routed
through the petitioner but were ultimately paid by
respondent No.2. The petitioner further contended
that it merely acted as an intermediary.
2.2. Respondent No.2 also appeared and filed a
written statement, categorically denying any
employment relationship with the respondent
workman. It was submitted that respondent No.2
had only provided training to the respondent
workman for the maintenance and repair of head
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10261/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
pumps, which were under the administrative
control of the petitioner, and that there existed no
employer-employee relationship between
respondent No.2 and the workman.
2.3. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record
and the submissions advanced by the parties, the
learned Labour Court allowed the reference and
directed the present petitioner to pay a lump sum
compensation of ₹50,000/- to the respondent
workman, which is the subject matter of challenge
in the present petition.
3. Heard the learned advocate Mr.U.M.Shastri for the
petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Shastri submits that the
learned Labour Court has committed an error in
directing the present petitioner to pay lump sum
compensation of ₹50,000/- without appreciating the
fact that respondent No.1 was neither appointed
through the employment exchange nor had
completed 240 days of service in any year. As per
the workman's own case, he was appointed on
03.12.2002 and his services were terminated on
18.08.2007, whereas the Reference came to be filed
in the year 2009, after an unexplained delay of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10261/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
nearly two years.
4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Shastri further submits
that respondent No.2, i.e., the State Government,
had passed a Resolution for handing over the
administration of the repair and maintenance of
head pumps to the respective Gram Panchayats,
and pursuant to the said policy, respondent No.1
came to be appointed. It is contended that
respondent No.2 had provided training to
respondent No.1 and had also paid his salary.
4.2. Referring to the oral evidence recorded at
Exhibits 21 and 23, learned advocate Mr. Shastri
submits that though the salary was disbursed
through the petitioner, the actual payment was
made by respondent No.2. In absence of any
documentary evidence substantiating the
workman's claim, the Labour Court has erred in
allowing the Reference and awarding
compensation in favour of the respondent. It is
therefore prayed that the present petition be
allowed and the impugned award be quashed and
set aside.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by
learned advocate Mr. Shastri for the petitioner and
upon referring to the reasons assigned by the Labour
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10261/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
Court, it emerges that the claim was raised before
the learned Reference Court seeking reinstatement
and for quashing and setting aside the oral
termination order dated 18.08.2007. It was the case
of the respondent-workman that he had worked
continuously from 03.12.2002 to 18.08.2007 and had
completed 240 days of service in each year, but his
services were terminated without following the due
procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes
Act.
5.1. To substantiate his claim, the respondent-
workman produced a training certificate issued by
respondent No.2, the gate invoices issued by the
petitioner, and also examined himself at Exhibit
21. The present petitioner examined a witness at
Exhibit 23, and respondent No.2 examined a
witness at Exhibit 26. During the cross-
examination of the petitioner's witness, it was
admitted that workmen were engaged for the
repair of head pumps. Though an application for
production of documentary evidence was filed at
Exhibit 17 and allowed in favour of the respondent-
workman, the petitioner failed to comply with the
said order. At the time of termination, no notice or
notice pay was given to the workman. It also
emerged that there were 110 head pumps
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10261/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
operated by the petitioner-Gram Panchayat, and it
was admitted in chief examination that wages
were disbursed through the petitioner to the
respondent-workman.
5.2. Further, during the cross-examination of the
workman, no adverse material was elicited to
disprove his claim. The assertion of having
completed 240 days of service was neither refuted
by the petitioner in the chief examination nor
during cross-examination. Moreover, no
documentary evidence was produced by the
petitioner to rebut the workman's claim. In this
background, and considering the five years of
service rendered, the learned Reference Court
rightly awarded lump sum compensation of
₹50,000/-, directing the petitioner to pay the
same.
6. This Court does not find any infirmity in the
impugned award. Accordingly, the petition fails and is
hereby dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
