Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jesingbhai Lalabhai Damor on 26 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12058/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12058 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
===============================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
===============================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
JESINGBHAI LALABHAI DAMOR & ANR.
===============================================================
Appearance:
MS SWEETY SAMARA AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 26/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the impugned
judgment and award dated 24.09.2019 passed by the Labour
Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 699 of 2001 whereby the
Labour Court had passed an award in favour of the respondent
and directed the petitioner to pay a lump sum compensation of
Rs. 1,90,000/- in lieu of reinstatement with continuity of service
and back wages along with the cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12058/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
respondent was employed with the petitioner since 21.05.1976
as a daily wager at project namely Matibandh Subdivision 1,
Divda Colony. The respondent's services were terminated by the
petitioner in 1992 due to reduction of work and, consequently,
the respondent raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court,
Godhra whereby, the Labour Court vide order dated 24.09.2019
held termination of the respondent as illegal and awarded
compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- in lieu of reinstatement with
continuity of service and back wages along with the cost of Rs.
5000/-
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award dated 24.09.2019, the petitioner has
preferred the present petition.
4. Heard Ms. Sweety Samara, learned AGP for the petitioners
and Mr. Dipak Dave, leaned counsel for the respondent at length.
Perused the material available on record.
5. Ms. Samara, learned AGP for the petitioner has submitted
that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour
Court is erroneous, bad in law and contrary to the facts and
records of the case and therefore, is required to be quashed and
set aside. She has submitted that the Labour Court has
erroneously considered the fact that the petitioner would come
under the definition of "industry" as per section 2(j) of the The
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That, the reference ought to have
been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the
respondent had approached the Labour Court after a delay of 10
years even though he had been terminated in the year 1992. She
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12058/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
has contended that the Labour Court had not considered the fact
that respondent had not worked for continuous period of 240
days in any year of service with the petitioner herein. That, the
respondent had not adduced any evidence to prove that he was
working with petitioner since 1976. Over and above the grounds
agitated in the memo of petition, learned AGP Ms. Samara has
urged that the impugned judgment and award passed by the
Labour Court is required to be quashed and set aside and the
present petition is required to be allowed.
6. As against that, learned counsel Mr. Dave, appearing for
the respondent-workman, has opposed the present petition and
submitted that there is no any infirmity or any illegality in the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court and
therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the
present petition. He has submitted that the impugned judgment
and award passed by the Labour Court is in consonance with the
settled principles of law and is passed after following due
procedure and therefore, the same is required to be confirmed
and the present petition is required to be dismissed and no
interference is required to be called for while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I
have also considered the impugned judgment and award passed
by the Labour Court. It is held and observed by the Division
Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023 that in normal
circumstances in every case the reinstatement is not to be
considered and instead of that considering the long lapse and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12058/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
delay, the lump sum compensation can be awarded and
therefore, considering the ratio laid down by the Division Bench
of this Court in aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023,
I am of the opinion that since the petitioner - State has already
deposited the said amount of compensation awarded by the
Labour Court no interference is required to be called for in the
present petition. Hence, the petition has become infructuous and
is disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged. There shall be no
order as to costs.
7.1 The amount deposited by the petitioner - State is to be
disbursed in favour of the respondent - workman through A/C
payee cheque after following due procedure and after verifying
his bank details.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
ANUSRI
