Gujarat High Court
Ghanshyambhai Dilubha Gohil vs Hakumatsinh H Jadeja on 18 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13056/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13056 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
GHANSHYAMBHAI DILUBHA GOHIL
Versus
HAKUMATSINH H JADEJA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
PARTH J ADHYARU(9359) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
SIDDHI V VADODARIYA(9533) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 18/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated
11.02.2025 passed by the learned Labour Court
below Exhibit 88 in Workman Compensation Non-
Fatal Case No.6 of 2012, whereby the application
preferred by the petitioner for withdrawal of 100% of
the compensation amount came to be partly allowed.
By the said order, the learned Court directed that
only 15% of the total amount be disbursed in favour
of the petitioner, while the remaining 85% be
invested in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs).
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13056/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
petitioner met with an accident and, accordingly, an
amount of ₹6,42,128/- was awarded towards
workman's compensation, which came to be
deposited by the insurance company, i.e., respondent
No.2, on 07.01.2025. The petitioner thereafter
preferred an application below Exhibit 88 seeking
withdrawal of 100% of the deposited amount.
Respondent No.2 made an endorsement of 'No
Objection' to the said prayer. However, the learned
Court, while considering the said application, has
ordered disbursement of only 15% of the total
deposit in favour of the petitioner and directed that
the remaining 85% be invested in a fixed deposit for
a period of five years. The said order is the subject
matter of challenge in the present petition.
3. Heard the learned advocate Ms.Siddhi Vadodariya for
the petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Ms. Vadodariya submits that
pursuant to the award passed in Workman Non-Fatal
Case No.6 of 2012, the amount came to be deposited
by the insurance company. Learned advocate Ms.
Vadodariya submits that the present case is not a
fatal case, as the petitioner himself has suffered 75%
permanent disability. Therefore, an application was
filed seeking withdrawal of 100% of the deposited
amount on the ground that, earlier, the father of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13056/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
petitioner was supporting him in providing livelihood.
However, after the death of the father in the year
2018, the petitioner's family is left in a hand-to-
mouth condition. It is further submitted by the
learned advocate Ms.Vadodariya that the petitioner
had to manage his livelihood with the help of
financial assistance from relatives, and, therefore, if
the entire awarded amount is disbursed, the same
would serve the ends of justice. However, the learned
Court declined the said relief and ordered only partial
disbursement, which is the subject matter of
challenge in the present petition.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocate Ms.Vadodariya for the petitioner
and on perusal of the reasons, it appears that the
application filed below Exhibit 88 for withdrawal of
the amount deposited by the insurance company was
duly endorsed by the Superintendent, stating that no
appeal had been filed nor any stay granted by the
higher forum. On a plain reading of the application, it
also emerges that the insurance company had raised
no objection to the disbursement of the entire
amount in favour of the petitioner. However, despite
the same, the learned Court ordered disbursement of
only 15% of the total amount, while directing that the
remaining 85% be invested in a fixed deposit, solely
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13056/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
relying upon the general directions issued by this
Court.
6. In the opinion of this Court, when the petitioner, who
himself has suffered the injury and is the claimant in
the application under the Workmen's Compensation
Act, had moved an application seeking disbursement
of 100% of the awarded amount, and the same was
duly endorsed by respondent No.2 by recording 'no
objection', the learned Court, instead of directing
release of only 15%, ought to have ordered full
disbursement. The amount, if released in entirety,
would serve the purpose of livelihood of the
petitioner, who has been rendered 75% disabled on
account of the injury.
7. Resultantly, this petition succeeds and is hereby
allowed. The amount deposited by respondent No.2 -
Insurance Company, i.e. Rs.6,44,128/- together with
the accrued interest thereon, shall be disbursed in
favour of the petitioner.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
