Gujarat High Court
Yayman Ummehani Ashraf Muslim Society A vs Gram Panchayat Office on 15 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11507/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11507 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
YAYMAN UMMEHANI ASHRAF MUSLIM SOCIETY A
Versus
GRAM PANCHAYAT OFFICE & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 15/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the
award passed by the learned Labour Court in
Reference (T) No.792 of 2000, whereby the learned
Labour Court has awarded a meagre amount of
Rs.35,000/- as lump sum compensation for the
petitioner's service of approximately seven years.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that he was
serving as a Peon since 03.10.1997 and was
receiving monthly wages of Rs.1,000/-. The
respondent Panchayat had issued a resolution
confirming his appointment. However, the services of
the petitioner were terminated on 15.01.2000, which
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11507/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
became the subject matter of Reference before the
learned Labour Court. After considering the evidence
placed on record, the learned Labour Court awarded
a lump sum compensation of Rs.35,000/- in lieu of
reinstatement and back wages, which is under
challenge before this Court.
3. Heard the learned advocate Mr.P.C.Chaudhary for the
petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Tanmay Karia for
the respondents.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary submits that it is an
undisputed fact that the petitioner had served for
more than six years and had completed 240 days in
each calendar year. It is further submitted by the
learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary that though the
learned Labour Court believed the case of the
respondent regarding illegal termination, instead of
granting the relief of reinstatement, it awarded a
meager amount of Rs.35,000/- as lump sum
compensation. In support of his submissions, learned
advocate Mr. Chaudhary has relied upon the decision
rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Bhikhabhai Fatabhai Solanki Versus
Executive Engineer, Narmada Project Canal
System & Anr. in Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of
2023, wherein criteria for awarding lump sum
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11507/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
compensation based on the length of service has
been laid down. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary,
therefore, submits that since the petitioner had
completed more than six years of continuous service,
he is entitled to enhanced compensation in
accordance with the said decision.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Karia
submits that the learned Reference Court, after
assigning cogent and valid reasons, has partly
allowed the Reference by awarding lump sum
compensation of Rs.35,000/- in favour of the
petitioner. It is submitted by the learned advocate
Mr. Karia that the award is just and proper in the
facts of the case and, therefore, does not warrant
any interference by this Court and the petition is
required to be dismissed.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties, it is an
undisputed fact that the impugned award has not
been challenged by the employer. The learned
Reference Court, upon concluding that the petitioner
had served from 01.02.1993 to 15.01.2000, awarded
a lump sum compensation of Rs.35,000/-. It further
emerges from the record that the petitioner expired
in the year 2013, and therefore, the said amount was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11507/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
directed to be paid to Ashraf Abdul Momin, who is the
legal heir of the deceased petitioner.
7. This Court has referred the decision rendered by the
Division Bench in case of BHIKHABHAI FATABHAI
SOLANKI (supra) wherein the following observations
are made:
"10. Having come to the conclusion that the lump sum
compensation would be appropriate remedy for the
families of the deceased workmen, the other aspects
which comes for consideration is quantum of lump sum
compensation. Though learned advocate Mr. Bhatt has
contended that there was delay in preferring the
complaint and the subsequent reference, it can be
observed from the pleadings that the averments with
regard to delay and laches in preferring the reference
were not made before the labour court as well as the
learned Single Judge. Therefore, the argument of
learned advocate Mr. Bhatt with regard to delay and
laches in preferring reference cannot be countenanced
and what needs to be seen is that almost all the
workmen have put in 16-20 years of service for the
respondent and their services were terminated without
following due procedure of law. Therefore, the families
of the deceased workmen needs to be compensated
proportionally as to the number of years of service put
in by them. However, in order to balance the equation,
we have considered to give effect of delay in preferring
the reference while enhancing the amount of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11507/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
compensation. Thus, while calculating the number of
years of services, we proposed to deduct the number of
years service for which there is delay in preferring
reference. After deduction of such number of service,
we propose to give compensation in the following
tabular form:
Sr.No. Total number of years for lumsum Amount of lumsum
compensation compensation
1 5 to 10 years Rs.3.00 lacs
2 10-15 years Rs.5.00 lacs
3 15-20 years Rs.7.5 lacs
8. Considering the aforesaid decision, in the opinion of
this Court, the amount awarded by the learned
Labour Court deserves to be enhanced to
Rs.3,00,000/-, as the petitioner had completed more
than six years of continuous service.
9. Resultantly, the petition is partly allowed. The
impugned award is modified to the extent that the
petitioner shall be entitled to a lumpsum
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The respondent is
directed to pay the said amount towards full and final
settlement of the award within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
