Gujarat High Court
Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited vs Sandipkumar Dineshchandra Raval on 19 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14655/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14655 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
SANDIPKUMAR DINESHCHANDRA RAVAL
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 19/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of present petition under Article 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the award dated
02.05.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference
(LCB) No. 80 of 2017, whereby the learned Judge directed the
petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service without backwages
but with continuity of service and consequential benefits.
2. The petition came to be admitted by this Court vide order dated
11.01.2021, which reads as under :
"1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave for the petitioner and learned
advocate Ms. Dimple A. Thaker for the respondent, who is appearing on
caveat through video conference.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14655/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
2. Learned advocate Ms. Dimple Thaker has filed reply on behalf of the
respondent, which is considered.
3. After hearing the learned advocates for both the sides, it is clearly
understood by both the learned advocates that the petitioner has already
reinstated the respondent, pursuant to the award dated 02.05.2019 passed
by the Presiding Officer (SD), Labour Court No.1, Bharuch in Reference
(LCB) No. 80 of 2017.
4. As per the award, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent
without backwages, but with continuity of service and all consequential
benefits within a period of 30 days from the date of the publication of the
award. Accordingly, the petitioner has already reinstated the respondent
and therefore, now the only question that remains for consideration by this
Court is in respect of other reliefs of continuity of service and other
consequential benefits as granted by the Labour Court.
5. I have heard both the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties and have perused the record of the petition and reply filed by the
respondent.
6. In the affidavit-in-reply in paragraph-3 (ii) and (iii), the respondent has
stated as under:
"ii. After two years of the Respondents service, an incident occurred
that on 18.11.2014, one customer paid Rs. 300/- towards the
outstanding electricity charges for which the respondent serving as
cashier issued a receipt of Rs. 300/- to the customer. However, the
Respondent is blamed of having committed financial irregularity on
the ground that the customer had paid Rs. 3,000/- and not Rs. 300/-.
It is pertinent to note that no such complaint has been registered by
the said customer against the present Respondent or the Petitioner
company. Infact the said customer has tendered two affidavits
dated 12.04.2016 and 11.08.2016 stating that no such complaint
has been filed and someone had maliciously filed complaint on his
name to the petitioner company and he accepts that he had only
paid Rs. 300/ to the Petitioner company towards his outstanding bill.
The said affidavits are already produced before the Labour Court in
the reference. Copies of the said affidavits are annexed hereto and
marked Annexure R2 and R3. It is relevant to note that the higher
officer, one N. R. Chaudhary, Deputy Engineer at that time, had
asked the Respondent to deposit Rs. 2,700/- on the basis of the
complaint which the original customer denies to have made it. It is
noticeable that the Respondent was framed for no fault of him on
the false complaint. Copy of the false complaint is annexed hereto
and marked Annexure R4. The Respondent was issued letter on the
said issue on 18.04.2015 to which the Respondent responded vide
reply dated 27.05.2015 and only and only to save his service he
deposited the amount of Rs. 2700/- even when the customer filed an
affidavit to the effect that he has only paid Rs. 300/- for which the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14655/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
receipt is rightly issued to him. The Respondent in order to save his
service from which he earns his bread and butter, he mentioned in
reply the deposit details and assured that such mistake shall not
occur. Copy of the letter dated 18.04.2015 and the reply filed by the
Respondent along with receipts is annexed hereto and marked
Annexure R5 Collectively. It is relevant that thereafter no decision or
action was taken against the Respondent based on the reply.
iii. Thereafter, another incident took place on 15.05.2015, when the
Respondent was working on the cashier table and on 15.05.2015
had made collection of 52,855/- for which the Respondent made a
deposit slip of the bank of Rs. 52,855/-. However, after the closing of
the cashier table two customer came to deposit Rs. (1230 + 280)=
Rs. 1510 to which the Respondent informed those customer that the
time is over as its 15:30 hrs. However, the DYSO told the
Respondent to accept the payment as the customer were villagers
coming from distant. The Respondent accepted the payment and
kept the said amount in the drawer. Since there was holiday next
day, the amount was to be deposited on Monday in the bank. The
Respondent due to personal reason reached late to the office on
Monday and therefore requested his colleague to deposit the
amount in the bank. The entire amount along with the receipt was
sent for deposit to the bank, however, there was difference of Rs.
1510 as the same was not reflected in the deposit slip. The bank
cashier deposited the amount as per bank slip and did not realize
that Rs.1510 is extra. Ultimately, the Respondent was served with
the letter in this regard. The Respondent deposited the difference
amount to save his service as there was no intention to commit
financial irregularity. Copy of the letter and the statement along
with the reply filed by the Respondent along with the receipt is
annexed hereto and marked Annexure R6, R7 and R8 Collectively.
No action was taken thereafter against the petitioner and was
allowed to continue on service."
7. The aforesaid submission of the respondent on oath is sufficient and is
suggestive of the fact that there may be compelling circumstances as
canvased by the petitioner or mistake but the fact remains that the
financial irregularities had occurred and therefore, at this juncture, since
the matter has come up for admission, it would be appropriate to stay the
impugned award qua continuity of service and consequential benefits,
considering the fact that, as the respondent has already reinstated and is
performing his duties, the aspect of continuity of service and consequential
benefits can be looked into at the time of final hearing.
8. Hence, Rule. Learned advocate Ms. Dimple A. Thaker waives service of
notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.
9. By way of interim relief, impugned award at AnnexureA is stayed qua
continuity of service and consequential benefits."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14655/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for
the respective parties have jointly submitted that the parties have
amicably settled the dispute outside the Court. Learned counsel Mr.
Dipak R. Dave, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has tendered
today copy of settlement pursis dated 19.06.2024 bearing signature
of the concerned parties, the same is taken on record.
4. The consent terms and conditions of the settlement pursis are
reproduced hereunder :
SETTELMENT PURSIS
1. The Respondent had initially joined as Vidhyut Sahayak (Jr. Asst.) on
dated 09.10.2012 for a fix period of 03 years and the contract came to end
on dated 08.10.2015. It was the case, that he should have been regularized
immediately after completion of fixed tenure for which he raised dispute
(Ref. (LCB) 80/2017) and during the pendency of the said dispute he was
appointed afresh and accordingly joined on dated 04.09.2018.
2. The Petitioner herein has challenged the Award in Ref. (LCB) 80/2017
dated 02.05.2019 in Hon'ble High Court and by order dated 11.01.2021,
Hon'ble Court has observed that respondent is already reinstated and
performing his duty and interim relief was granted by staying the Award of
Labour Court regarding continuity of service and consequential benefit.
3. The issue was represented before various authorities and it has been
mutually decided to settle the issue in following terms:
a. Respondent will be considered on the post of Junior Assistant on regular
basis from 09.10.2015.
b. His Salary will be notionally drawn from 09.10.2015 to 01.05.2019
without paying any difference.
c. He will be paid regular salary (notionally drawn from 09.10.2015
onwards) from 02.05.2019 with payment of difference of salary.
d. The period from 09.10.2012 shall be counted only for the purpose of
terminal benefits and Seniority.
4. In lieu of above, Petitioner would not take actions against him for the
issues mentioned in the petition.
The above being full and final settlement, both the parties pray this
Honorable Court to dispose the matter in terms of settlement and oblige.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14655/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
5. In view of above, the present appeal is partly allowed. The
impugned judgment and award is modified in terms of the settlement
pursis. Both the parties shall act upon the terms and conditions
stipulated in the settlement pursis. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
