Gujarat High Court
Ashokbhai Dahyabhai Raval (Deceased) vs Specified Area Officer, Chhatral Gidc on 10 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3308/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3308 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
ASHOKBHAI DAHYABHAI RAVAL (DECEASED) & ORS.
Versus
SPECIFIED AREA OFFICER, CHHATRAL GIDC & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
JIGNESHKUMAR M NAYAK(8558) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 10/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India challenging the award
passed by learned Labour Court, Kalol in reference LCK
No.268 of 2005 dated 29.04.2019 qua not granting the
100% back wages when the relief of reinstatement was
granted.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3308/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the deceased
workman was serving as a peon since last 35 months
before the date of termination and was getting monthly
wages of Rs.3,000/-. As the employer has not provided
the legal rights for which he was entitled, on demanding
the same, the deceased workman was terminated from
the service on 24.08.2005. Challenging the oral order of
termination, the dispute was raised before the learned
Labour Commissioner which was referred to the learned
Labour Court for deciding that whether the deceased
workman is entitled for the relief of reinstatement with
all the consequential benefits. On raising the dispute
before the learned Labour Court though respondents
appeared, however, has not adduced any evidence
neither had cross-examined the deceased workman
therefore, the learned reference court has awarded the
reference in favour of the deceased workman by
granting the relief of reinstatement with 10% back
wages. Aggrieved by the grant of the back wages to the
extent of 10% only, the present petition is filed.
2.1. It emerges from the record that this Court has issued
the notice on 06.02.2020 to the respondent however,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3308/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
respondent chose not to appear before this Court.
Thereafter, as the workman passed away therefore,
application for bringing legal heirs was filed and in the
said application also despite Rule was issued and it was
served, respondent fails to appear before this Court.
Thereafter, in the present petition, vide its order dated
11.10.2024, this Court has issued Rule which was
reported to have been served to the respondent
employer on 28.11.2024, no one has represented the
respondent either in person or through an advocate. In
that background, this Court has proceeded to examine
the case of the petitioner with regard to grant of back
wages.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Naik for the petitioner.
3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Naik submits that after
declaring unemployment, during the period starting
from the date of termination till the date of award, no
evidence was adduced neither any rebuttal was made by
the respondent to controvert the facts stated by the
petitioner in the statement of claim as well as in the
chief-examination. Learned advocate Mr.Naik submits
that only on presuming that for such a long time no one
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3308/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
would remain unemployed the learned Labour Court has
awarded 10% back wages instead of granting 100% back
wages and in that background the impugned award
requires to be modified to the extent of 100% back
wages and the petition is required to be allowed.
4. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocate Mr.Naik and on referring the reasons
assigned by the learned Court, it emerges that after the
termination was held illegal the learned Court has
proceeded to examine the case with regard to grant of
relief as claimed by the deceased workman. Learned
Court has awarded the relief of reinstatement with back
wages to the extent of 10% while observing that after
declaring unemployment the reference was filed in the
year 2005 and statement of claim was filed in the year
2017. It is observed by the learned Court that for such a
long period, the deceased workman remained
unemployed and that fact cannot be believed and on
presuming the same, learned Court has awarded the
relief of 10% back wages with reinstatement. During the
pendency of the petition, the deceased workman passed
away on 29.04.2021. Therefore, no question regarding
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3308/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
reinstatement arises for adjudication before this Court.
It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Naik that the
impugned award has not been challenged by the
respondent employer, however, the same has not been
complied also. This Court is of the view that when the
petitioner has declared on oath that after termination of
service he could not procure another job despite making
sincere efforts, the burden would shift on the employer
to rebut the same by adducing the evidence or by cross-
examining the workman. When the declaration which
was made on oath during the chief-examination has
remained unchallenged, then in the opinion of this
Court, learned Court ought to have granted the relief of
50% back wages instead of 10% back wages. As
observed by the learned Court that after filing of the
statement of claim in the year 2005, the chief-
examination was submitted in the year 2017, therefore,
ends of justice would meet if the 50% back wages would
be awarded instead of 10%.
5. Resultantly, the impugned award is modified to the
extent of grant of 50% back wages and petition is
disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3308/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
above extent.
6. Direct service is permitted.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
ARCHANA S. PILLAI
