Gujarat High Court
Goswami Babubharthi Lalbharthi vs Gujarat Electricity Board on 17 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/921/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 921 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
GOSWAMI BABUBHARTHI LALBHARTHI & ORS.
Versus
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
REFUSED SERVED (R)(70) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 17/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak
Dave waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the
respondent No.1.
2. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, challenging the award
passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference (LCA)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/921/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
No.1273 of 2002 below Exh.19, whereby respondent
No.2, i.e., Alpha Engineers, is directed to pay a lump
sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- within a period of 60
days or with interest at the rate of 9%.
3. It is the case of the present petitioner that the
petitioners are working with respondent No.1, i.e., the
contractor of respondent No.2, as Helpers in the Civil
Maintenance Department for the past 11 years. Prior to
the date of reference, a dispute was raised before the
learned Industrial Tribunal being Reference (IT) No.259
of 1996, seeking the benefit of permanency and
treatment at par with regular employees, as the contract
between respondent Nos.1 and 2 was concluded on
05.02.2002. The services of the petitioner came to be
terminated without following due procedure under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as
the "ID Act") on 06.02.2002, which was the subject
matter of challenge before the learned Labour Court.
Upon considering the evidence adduced by all the
parties, the learned Labour Court came to the
conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to lump sum
compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/921/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
respondent No.2 was held liable for the payment of such
compensation, which is now under challenge before this
Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. U.T. Mishra for the
petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave for
respondent No.1, and though notice was served, it was
refused by respondent No.2, i.e., Alpha Engineers, who
is the contractor.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits that respondent
No.2 also remained absent before the learned Reference
Court, and the learned Court concluded the reference in
favour of the petitioner by holding that the termination
was illegal and in violation of Section 25(F) of the ID
Act. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits that the
learned Court did not dispute the continuity of service of
11 years; however, instead of granting the relief of
reinstatement, a lump sum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was
awarded as compensation. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra
has relied on the decision rendered by this Court in
Letters Patent Appeal No.908 of 2023, wherein this
Court discussed the relevant period and the entitlement
to compensation. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/921/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
that the impugned award deserves to be set aside in
view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of
this Court, and hence, the petition is required to be
allowed.
6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Dave submits
that, since the dispute before the learned Industrial
Tribunal regarding regularization was pending, the
learned Reference Court was justified in directing
respondent No.2, i.e., the contractor, to pay the lump
sum compensation. Learned advocate Mr. Dave further
submits that, after the decision rendered by the learned
Labour Court, an award was passed in favour of
respondent No.1 in Reference (IT) No.259 of 1996,
rejecting the relief sought for permanency by the
present petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Dave submits
that the said award was confirmed up to the Division
Bench of this Court, and therefore, the learned Court
was justified in directing respondent No.2 to pay the
lump sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. Hence, no
interference is required, and the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/921/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
learned advocates for the respective parties, at the
outset, it is required to be noted that, though notice was
served, as per the affidavit of service filed by the
petitioner, respondent No.2 refused to accept the same.
It is an undisputed position that the petitioners are
employees of respondent No.2, who is the labour
supplier and had a contract with respondent No.1. The
reference, being Reference (IT) No.259 of 1996, was
pending before the learned Industrial Tribunal seeking
the benefit of permanency, which was awarded against
the present petitioner and confirmed by this Court. The
contract executed between respondent No.1 and
respondent No.2 was terminated on 05.02.2002, and the
services of the petitioner, who had served with
respondent No.1 under the contract with respondent
No.2 for 11 years, were terminated without following
due procedure under the law. It is submitted by learned
advocate Mr. Mishra that respondent No.2 neither
complied with the order passed by this Court nor
challenged the same before any higher forum. At this
stage decision rendered by the Division Bench of this
Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.908 of 2023 is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/921/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
required to be referred, wherein this Court has observed
as under: -
"Thus, while calculating the number of years of services, we
proposed to deduct the number of years service for which there is
delay in preferring reference. After deduction of such number of
service, we propose to give compensation in the following tabular
form:
Sr. Total no. of years for Amount of lump sum
No. lump sum compensation compensation
1. 5 to 10 years Rs.3.00 lacs
2. 10-15 years Rs.5.00 lacs
3. 15-20 years Rs.7.5 lacs
8. Considering the above, this Court is of the view that the
lump sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, which was
awarded by the learned Labour Court, is required to be
enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-, and respondent No.2 is
directed to pay the same within a period of 30 days, or
with accrued interest of 9%.
9. In view of the above, this petition is allowed with the
above directions.
10. Rule is made absolute.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
