Gujarat High Court
Shri Sardar Smarak Hospital vs Bharatbhai Bhagubhai Bhandari on 4 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15294/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15294 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
SHRI SARDAR SMARAK HOSPITAL
Versus
BHARATBHAI BHAGUBHAI BHANDARI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
JEET Y RAJYAGURU(8039) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 04/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the
learned Labour Court, Surat, in Reference (LCS) No.62 of 2018
dated 24.07.2024, whereby the learned court partly allowed the
reference filed by the respondent - workman and directed to
reinstate the respondent along with 50% back wages and cost of
Rs.5,000/-.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15294/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
was working with the petitioner for more than 16 years, drawing
a salary of Rs.6,195/- as a Wireman and he was terminated on
11.01.2016 after the issuance of a notice. It is alleged in the
statement of claim that without following the procedure
prescribed under the Act, the oral termination was ordered.
Claiming a violation of Section 25F, a dispute was raised for
reinstatement and all consequential benefits. The petitioner
herein appeared before the learned Court and submitted that
the petitioner is a Charitable Trust and operating a hospital for
the health and welfare of the citizens of the town of Bardoli. It is
contended that the respondent was not following the rules, as
well as instructions of the superior officer and though notice was
issued informing the said conduct of the respondent on
12.12.2015, no improvement was made despite assurance given
by the respondent after the issuance of the notice. The
respondent himself had approached to the petitioner and
submitted his unwillingness to continue with the job, accepting
the oral resignation and informing his intention to take his legal
dues. The respondent has claimed illegal termination. Learned
Labour Court, considering the evidence adduced, has partly
allowed the reference by granting the relief mentioned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15294/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
hereinabove, which is the subject matter of challenge before this
court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Gadhia for the petitioner and
learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru for the respondent.
4. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Gadhia submits that
during the pendency of the petition, the respondent has already
been taken back into service and at present, he is serving without
any hindrance. Learned advocate Mr. Gadhia submits that as the
award was implemented qua reinstatement, therefore, the only
part remaining for adjudication is back wages. Learned advocate
Mr. Gadhia submits that during the cross-examination of the
respondent, it was admitted that in the respondent's bank
account, there are various entries suggesting that a huge amount
was credited in the account. Learned advocate Mr. Gadhia
submits that while discarding the said cross-examination, the
learned Court has granted 50% back wages and therefore, the
same is required to be quashed and set aside and the present
petition is required to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru submits that
with regard to the entries which are alleged to have been made
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15294/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
in the account, the explanation is offered by the respondent that
it was the amount of withdrawal from LIC and PF to meet with
routine expenses. Learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru submits that
after assigning the cogent and convincing reasons, the learned
Court has passed an order granting 50% back wages; therefore,
no interference is required.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned
advocates for the respective parties and referring to the reasons,
it emerges that during the pendency of the petition, the
respondent was reinstated on 21.12.2024 and as on date, he is
working with the petitioner - employer. It emerges that the
respondent was doing business work, as reflected from the bank
statement, which is part of the record. In that background, if the
amount awarded towards 50% back wages is modified to 25%
back wages, the ends of justice would be met.
7. Resultantly, the present petition is partly allowed and the
impugned award is modified in terms of 25% back wages. Other
directions issued in the impugned order remain unaltered.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
Vikramsinh Amarsinh
