Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat Through Deputy ... vs Lalubhai Dipabhai Chauhan on 19 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10629/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10629 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
=========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR.
Versus
LALUBHAI DIPABHAI CHAUHAN & ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Respondent(s) No. 5
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 5.1,5.2,6
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 19/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned award
dated 14.06.2019 passed in Reference Case (T) No. 716 of 1999 by
the learned Judge, Labour Court, Godhra whereby the Labour Court
has allowed the Reference and directed the petitioners herein to
reinstate the respondents No.1 to 4 in service without back wages and
to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation as full and final
settlement to the legal heirs of respondent No.5.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the workmen were
working since 1978 as a Rojamdar with the petitioner and, thereafter,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10629/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
there services came to be terminated with effect from 11.10.1989.
The workmen had preferred aforesaid Reference Case before the
Labor Court, which came to be allowed with direction to the
petitioners herein to reinstate the respondents No.1 to 4 in service
without back wages and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation
as full and final settlement to the legal heirs of respondent No.5.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award, the
petitioner has filed the present petition.
4. Heard Ms.Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for the petitioners and Mr.Yogen Pandya, learned counsel for the
respondents - workmen. Perused the material placed on record.
5. Ms.Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted
that the workmen were the daily wagers and appointed for limited
purpose and they have not completed 240 days in each calendar year
and the respondents have never worked with the petitioners for 240
days. She has submitted that the work done by the respondents was
seasonal one and there is no permanent work. She has submitted that
the Labour Court has committed an error in concluding that the
petitioners fall under the definition of "industry" as per Section 2(j) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. She has submitted that there was
gross delay of 11 years in preferring the reference before the Labour
Court as the services of the workmen came to be terminated in the
year 1989 i.e. on 11.10.1989 and the respondents had preferred
reference in 1999 i.e. after almost ten years of termination and
without considering the delay, the Labour Court has passed the
award, which is illegal and unjust. She has submitted that the
workmen are appointed as daily wager and, therefore, their services
cannot be considered as permanent in nature as they have not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10629/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
completed 240 days in each calender year. She has submitted that
though sufficient material placed before the Labour Court, however,
without considering the same, the Labour Court has allowed the
Reference and awarded compensation amount. She has submitted
that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment
and award deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra, Mr.Pandya, learned counsel for the respondents -
workmen has submitted that the respondents worked with the
petitioners establishment and they have placed documentary
evidence before the Labour Court with regard to the fact that the
workmen all have worked for more than eleven years and completed
240 days in each calender year, however, the petitioners have not
produced any documentary evidence to controvert this fact. He has
submitted that the petitioners have not produced any register
showing the presence of the workmen and, therefore, under such
circumstances, the award passed by the Labour Court is in
consonance with the settled legal principle and there is no any
infirmity and irregularity committed by the Labour Court. He has
submitted that the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed
and in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023, appropriate award of lumpsum
compensation be passed.
7. Considering the submissions canvassed by learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties and the impugned award passed
by the Labour Court, it appears that the Labour Court has rightly
appreciated the evidence while coming to the conclusion and without
there being any rebuttal, on the other hand, the Labour Court has
awarded Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of legal heirs of respondent No.5 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10629/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
reinstated the respondents No.1 to 4 in service which is erroneous. In
view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited
Versus Suresh S/o Dadarao Gadge reported in (2015) 4 SCC 542
and the oral order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023 and allied appeals
more particularly para - 8, 10 and 11, this Court is of the opinion that
the purpose would be served if lumpsum amount of Rs.2,50,000/-
awarded by the Labour Court is required to be enhanced.
8. The relevant paras - 8, 10 and 11 of the oral order dated
18.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023 and allied appeals reads thus:-
"8. It is not in dispute that the workmen were working as a
Watchman with effect from the year 1984 and the workmen had
rendered services from 16 years to 20 years. Therefore the core
question for consideration in these appeals would be whether lump
sum compensation could have been awarded instead of back-wages
and continuity to the families of the deceased employees and
further, if the order of lump sum compensation was right then what
would be quantum of such lump sum compensation. While deciding
the core question, the time gap which has intervened between the
date of termination and the date of granting relief of lump sum
compensation by the learned Single Judge has to be seen. The
workmen were terminated way back in the year 1999 and the order
of the learned Single Judge was passed in the year 2018. In the
recent years, there is shift of paradigm by granting lump sum
compensation instead of back wages and continuity. Even if there is
breach of Section 25F of the Act, it cannot necessarily mean to
automatically entail the relief of reinstatement and back wages to
the workmen. Obviously in the present case, there would not be a
case of reinstatement as all the workmen have passed away, but
reinstatement not being automatic, grant of lump sum
compensation would meet the ends of justice.
8.1. The shift in law on this count was highlighted by the Supreme
Court in Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal [(2010) 6 SCC 773] relying
on its own another decision in Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State
Agriculture Marketing Board [(2009) 15 SCC 327], observing that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10629/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
the relief of payment of lump-sum compensation could be a proper
relief in a given set of facts and circumstances.
"In the last few years it has been consistently held by this Court that
relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic
even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or is in
contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monetary
compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in cases of
such nature may be appropriate. (See U.P. State Brassware Corpn.
Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey [2006 (1) SCC 479], Uttaranchal Forest
Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi [2007 (9) SCC 353], State of M.P.
v. Lalit Kumar Verma [2007 (1) SCC 575], M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban
[2007 (9) SCC 748], Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training
Institute [2008 (5) SCC 75], Jaipur Development Authority v.
Ramsahai [2006 (11) SCC 684], GDA v. Ashok Kumar [2008 (4) SCC
261] and Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula [2008 (1)
SCC 575].)"
8.2. In subsequent decision in Rajasthan Development Corporation
Vs.Gitam Singh [(2013) 5 SCC 136], the Supreme Court stated,
"From the long line of cases indicated above, it can be said without
any fear of contradiction that this Court has not held as an absolute
proposition that in cases of wrongful dismissal, the dismissed
employee is entitled to reinstatement in all situations. It has always
been the view of this Court that there could be circumstance(s) in a
case which may make it inexpedient to order reinstatement.
Therefore, the normal rule that the dismissed employee is entitled
to reinstatement in cases of wrongful dismissal has been held to be
not without exception. Insofar as wrongful termination of daily-rated
workers is concerned, this Court has laid down that consequential
relief would depend on host of factors, namely, manner and method
of appointment, nature of employment and length of service. Where
the length of engagement as daily wager has not been long, award
of reinstatement should not follow and rather compensation should
be directed to be paid. A distinction has been drawn between a daily
wager and an employee holding the regular post for the purposes of
consequential relief."
8.3. In Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation Vs. M.C.Joshi
[(2007) 9 SCC 353], the Supreme Court held that the question of
grant of compensation in place of relief of reinstatement could be
guided by relevant factors to be that whether the appointment was
made in accordance with the statutory Rules or not.
8.4. It is to be observed that the decisions of the Supreme Court
have carved out the circumstances and aspects which may guide
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10629/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
the discretion of the court in awarding lump-sum compensation
instead of granting relief of reinstatement even if there is a breach
of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act.
8.5. These factors were highlighted in Bantva Municipality Vs.
Amritlal Harji Chauhan being Special Civil Application No.9135 of
2013 decided on 31.3.2014 as under :-
"(i) The fact that the workman is daily-rated workmen, not
permanently employed; (ii) He is not holding a permanent post; (iii)
Nature of his employment; (iv) Span of service, viz. The period
during which he worked upto the date of termination of services; (v)
Manner and method of appointment. Whether it was a backdoor
entry; (vi) The time gap from the date of termination; (vii) Delay in
raising the Reference is also considered to be a germane factor;
(viii) Any special feature peculiar to the facts of the particular case.
For instance, in Bhurumal (supra), the Supreme Court noticed that
post which the workman held was of Lineman in the Telephone
Department, and that the work of Lineman was drastically reduced
in view of advancement of the technology."
8.6. In the case of BSNL v. Bhurumal, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177,
it was categorically observed that even after reinstatement, it is
always open to the management to terminate the services of that
employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Even as a
daily-wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in
reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary
compensation by the Court itself.
9. Therefore, looking to the gap of date of appointment, date of
termination, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is seen,
grant of lump sum compensation cannot be faulted with.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10629/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
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 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 no. of years for Amount of lump sum
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
11. As the amount as awarded by the labour court is already paid
by the respondent such amount shall be deducted from the total
amount of compensation as per the above mentioned chart. To give
effect of each and every appellants qua amount of compensation,
the chart is reproduced herein-below.
Sr. LPA No. SCA No. Ref. Case Delay in Total Amount of Total no. of Amount Total
No No. filing Tenure of lump sum years for lump payable amount to
compensation service compensation sum be payable
awarded by compensation
labour court (i)
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (h - f )
1 908 of 2023 21754 of 2017 25 of 2013 1 year 20 years Rs.2.00 lacs 19 years Rs.7.5 lacs Rs.5.5 lacs
2 909 of 2023 21753 of 2017 24 of 2013 1 year 20 years Rs.2.00 lacs 19 years Rs.7.5 lacs Rs.5.5 lacs
3 910 of 2023 21750 of 2017 21 of 2013 3 year 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 13 years Rs.5.0 lacs Rs.3.5 lacs
4 911 of 2023 21749 of 2017 20 of 2013 3 year 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 13 years Rs.5.0 lacs Rs.3.5 lacs
5 912 of 2023 21751 of 2017 22 of 2013 3 year 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 13 years Rs.5.0 lacs Rs.3.5 lacs
6 913 of 2023 21752 of 2017 23 of 2013 3 year 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 13 years Rs.5.0 lacs Rs.3.5 lacs
7 914 of 2023 21747 of 2017 18 of 2013 3 year 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 13 years Rs.5.0 lacs Rs.3.5 lacs
8 915 of 2023 21748 of 2017 19 of 2013 3 year 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 13 years Rs.5.0 lacs Rs.3.5 lacs
9 916 of 2023 21746 of 2017 17 of 2013 3 year 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 13 years Rs.5.0 lacs Rs.3.5 lacs
10 917 of 2023 21758 of 2017 489 of 2013 4.5 year 17 years Rs.1.75 lacs 12.5 years Rs.5.0 lacs Rs.1.25 lacs
11 918 of 2023 21755 of 2017 113 of 2013 9 year 17 years Rs.1.75 lacs 8 years Rs.3.0 lacs Rs.1.25 lacs
12 919 of 2023 21756 of 2017 450 of 2013 2.5 year 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 13.5 years Rs.5.0 lacs Rs.3.5 lacs
9. Now, considering the materials placed on record and the
peculiar facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that instead of
granting any back wages and reinstatement respondents No.1 to 4
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10629/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
and benefits of continuity of service, it would be just and proper to
pay lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- each to respondents
No.1 to 4, which will serve the ends of justice. So far as respondent
No.5 is concerned, the Labour Court has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- as
compensation in favour of legal heirs of respondent No.5. It seems
that till date, the amount of compensation awarded to the tune of
Rs.2,00,000/- is not paid to the legal heirs of respondent No.5, then
the same shall be paid i.e. total amount of compensation to the tune
of Rs.2,50,000/- and if said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- paid then
remaining amount shall be paid to legal heirs of respondent No.5.
10. With the aforesaid conclusion, the petition stands allowed in
part. The impugned award passed by the Labour Court is hereby
quashed and set aside and the award is modified accordingly. An
amount of Rs.2,50,000/- each as lumpsum compensation shall be paid
to respondents No.1 to 4 by the employer after proper verification of
the identity and bank details through RTGS within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. If the amount
of Rs.2,00,000/- paid by the employer to the legal heir of respondent
No.5 then the same shall be deducted from the amount of
Rs.2,50,000/- and remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid and
if the said amount is not paid then the lumpsum amount which is
awarded by this Court shall be paid to the workmen. There shall be no
order as to costs. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
