Gujarat High Court
Naresh Ishwarbhai Parmar vs Chairman, Oil And Natural Gas ... on 4 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6703/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6703 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
NARESH ISHWARBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
Versus
CHAIRMAN, OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Petitioner(s) No. 11,8
MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY(1060) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11.1,11.2,11.3,11.4,12,2,3,4,5,6,7,8.1,9
MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MRS KALPANA K RAVAL(1046) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 04/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Nikunt
Raval waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of
respondent.
2. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, assailing the order passed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6703/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal
(CGIT), Ahmedabad, in Reference (CGIT) No. 147 of
2006, whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the
present respondent to pay a lump sum compensation of
Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and other
consequential benefits.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Prabhakar Upadhyay for the
petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval for the
petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay submits that during the
pendency of the present petition, all the petitioners have
attained the age of superannuation, and therefore, the
question of granting reinstatement does not arise.
Learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay further submits that,
considering the petitioners' four years of service, the
amount of compensation awarded by the learned
Reference Court is inadequate and requires
enhancement. Accordingly, it is contended that the
impugned award deserves to be set aside and the
present petition be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Raval submits that the
learned Reference Court, after duly considering all
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6703/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
relevant aspects, has awarded a lump sum compensation
of Rs.1,50,000/-, which has not been challenged by the
respondent-employer. Therefore, the amount so
awarded is just, fair, and reasonable, warranting no
interference by this Court. It is, accordingly, prayed that
the present petition be dismissed.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties, and upon
perusal of the record, it emerges that the order of
termination was passed by the respondent-employer in
the year 1988. It is an undisputed fact that, during the
pendency of the present petition, all the petitioners have
attained the age of superannuation. The record further
reveals that, challenging the said order of termination,
the petitioners had earlier preferred a writ petition
before this Court, being Special Civil Application No.
7200 of 1988, which came to be dismissed by this Court
vide judgment and order dated 05.08.1988 on the
ground of availability of an alternative remedy.
Subsequently impugned reference came to be filed,
seeking reinstatement. However, the learned Reference
Court, after due consideration, has awarded a lump sum
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6703/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement
and other consequential benefits. This Court has also
taken note of the decision rendered by the Division
Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of
2023, wherein it has been held as under: --
"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. Total no. of years for Amount of lump sum
No. lump sum 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
7. Considering the facts of the case as well as the decision
rendered by the Division Bench, this Court is of the
opinion that if the amount of compensation awarded by
the learned Reference Court is enhanced to
Rs.2,00,000/-, the ends of justice would be adequately
met.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition
is partly allowed. The lump sum compensation awarded
by the learned Reference Court is hereby enhanced to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6703/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
Rs.2,00,000/-. Any amount already paid by the
respondent-employer shall be duly adjusted, and the
balance amount shall be paid to the petitioners within a
period of eight weeks from today.
9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
