[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Rajkot Municipal Corporation vs Purshottambhai Bhabhabhai Jethva ... on 28 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5405/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5405 of 2024
==========================================================
RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.
Versus
PURSHOTTAMBHAI BHABHABHAI JETHVA SINCE DECD. THROUGH
LHRS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KV GADHIA(319) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS ASMITA V PATEL(5356) for the Petitioner(s) No. 2
MR PANKAJ R DESAI(3120) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 28/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India read with the provision of the
Industrial Disputes Act challenging the impugned
judgment and award dated 15.01.2024 passed by the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, No.1, Rajkot in
Reference (L.C.R.) Number 45 of 2015 whereby the
labour Court partly allowed the reference and instead of
reinstatement, awarded Rs.3,00,000/- as lumpsum
compensation in favour of the workman.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was
initially engaged on 25.02.1991 as a labourer and had
completed 240 days of service before the alleged
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5405/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
termination, as contemplated under Section 25(F) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter, the respondent
was appointed in the Zoo Department with effect from
13.10.1992 and subsequently transferred to the Garden
Department on the same day, where he claims to have
served as a permanent employee and to have been paid
basic pay along with medical and city allowances totalling
Rs.2,779 per month.
2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent
remained absent from duty for a prolonged period from
2004 to 2005 on the ground of illness and other personal
reasons and though he was later placed in the Investment
Department on 19.09.2005, he failed to report for duty
even there. Consequently, a show-cause notice dated
02.01.2007 was issued to the respondent; however, no
satisfactory reply was submitted and therefore a full-
fledged departmental inquiry was held. After conclusion
of the inquiry, the services of the respondent came to be
terminated with effect from 03.07.2010. After almost four
years from the date of termination, the respondent issued
a demand notice dated 26.12.2014 and subsequently
raised Reference (LCR) No. 45 of 2015 before the Labour
Court, Rajkot challenging the termination order dated
03.07.2010. During pendency of the reference
proceedings, the original workman - Purshottambhai
Bhabhabhai Jethva - expired on 05.07.2016 and his legal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5405/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
heirs came to be brought on record pursuant to the order
passed by the Labour Court. The petitioner filed reply to
the statement of claim denying all allegations and
contending inter alia that the reference was barred by
delay and limitation, that the termination was based on a
valid departmental inquiry, that the respondent was
habitual in remaining absent from services. However,
without properly appreciating the material placed on
record, the Labour Court passed the impugned judgment
and award.
2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award the petitioner Corporation has
preferred present petition.
3. Mr. K.V. Gadhia, learned counsel for the petitioner-
Corporation, has contended that several instances of
misconduct were reported against the present
respondent-original workman, particularly relating to
habitual absenteeism. He submitted that the said fact was
duly established during the course of the departmental
inquiry and, therefore, punishment was imposed and the
respondent was removed from service.
3.1 Mr. K.V. Gadhia, learned counsel for the petitioner,
has submitted that the order of removal was challenged
by the concerned respondent-workman after a delay of
about four years. However, without considering the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5405/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
contentions raised by the Corporation, the learned
Presiding Officer passed the impugned order and
awarded ₹3,00,000/- in favour of the respondent-
workman, which is erroneous, illegal, and unjust.
3.2 Mr. Gadhia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has
further submitted that although ample documentary
evidence and relevant decisions were produced before
the learned Presiding Officer, the same were not
considered while deciding the matter. In the facts of the
present case, the learned Presiding Officer has
erroneously passed the award granting a lumpsum
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, which is illegal,
unjustified, and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Hemal Shah, learned counsel
appearing with Mr. Pankaj Desai for the respondent-
workman, has contended that the concerned workman
expired during the pendency of the proceedings and that
he was a regular employee of the petitioner-Corporation.
Considering his tenure of service, the Labour Court has
not committed any error in awarding compensation.
Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned
Presiding Officer may not be disturbed while exercising
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
4.1 Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the respondent, has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5405/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
further contended that the observations made by the
learned Presiding Officer, after considering all relevant
facts, indicate that although the removal of the workman
by the Corporation during the pendency of the
proceedings was not interfered with, the Labour Court,
considering the length of service rendered by the
workman, awarded an amount of compensation. Such
award is just and proper, and therefore no interference is
called for.
5. I have gone through the relevant materials and
documents produced on record. I have also perused and
examined the impugned judgment and award passed by
the labour Court.
6. Upon examining the pleadings, documentary record,
oral evidence and the operative part of the award passed
by the Labour Court in Reference (L.C.R.) No. 45/2015,
this Court finds that the termination of the workman was
in clear violation of the principles of natural justice,
inasmuch as no second show-cause notice or effective
opportunity of hearing was granted and the employer
failed to justify the misconduct with cogent evidence
before imposing the punishment of dismissal.
7. The Labour Court has rightly observed that the past
service record of the workman was unblemished and the
incident in question was the first alleged misconduct
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5405/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
during a long span of service, and therefore the
punishment of dismissal was grossly disproportionate and
excessive in comparison with the alleged lapse. It further
emerges from the record that the employer did not
produce any material to establish that the workman was
engaged on duty from 2005 to 2010, and in absence of
such evidence the burden to justify the termination
remained unfulfilled.
8. With regard to the delay of 5 years in raising the
reference, the explanation tendered by the workman on
account of illiteracy has been rightly accepted in light of
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
of Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-
cum-Processing Service Society Ltd., reported in
1999 Law Suit (SC) 433, whereby the Labour Court has
restricted the effect of delay only to the relief of back
wages and not to the maintainability of the dispute. The
record further indicates that the workman expired on
07.03.2019, and therefore the question of reinstatement
does not survive, especially when the workman has
already been extended the benefit of pension.
9. Considering the prolonged litigation, and the
hardship suffered by the workman and his family, and in
the larger interest of justice, the Labour Court has set
aside the dismissal and awarded a lump-sum
compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5405/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
and full back wages, which appears to be fair, reasonable
and commensurate with the facts and circumstances of
the case.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no
perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the award
that would warrant interference in the exercise of
extraordinary jurisdiction, and therefore the petition
deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby
dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated
15.01.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer in Reference
(L.C.R.) Number 45 of 2015 is hereby confirmed.
11. The impugned judgment and award passed by the
Labour Court awarding compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in
favour of the present respondent shall be complied with
by the petitioner-Corporation within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The
said amount shall be paid to the legal heirs of the
deceased workman, after due verification of their bank
details, through RTGS/NEFT.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
