[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Hasmukhbhai Balashankerbhai Joshi vs Medical Officer on 2 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11019/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11019 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
--- No
==========================================
HASMUKHBHAI BALASHANKERBHAI JOSHI
Versus
MEDICAL OFFICER & ANR.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR MA PAREKH(1088) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 02/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned award
dated 20.01.2022 passed in Reference [L.C.B] Case No. 61 of 2024 by
the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.1, Bhavnagar
(hereinafter be referred to as "the Labour Court") whereby the Labour
Court has party allowed the reference and directed the respondent to
pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back
wages, continuity of service and other service benefits as full and final
settlement.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11019/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner - workman
was appointed as driver by the respondents on permanent post, after
following the process of recruitment Rules and Regulations and,
therefore, he was working since 14.07.1998 and he demanded his
legitimate requirements and benefits i.e. Muster-Card, Pay Slip and
Identity Card etc, on the contrary, the respondents paid less
remuneration, due to which, the workman was terminated with effect
from 31.08.2001 without any reason.
2.1 Against the said inaction on the part of the respondents, the
petitioner had filed I.D.R. Case No. 13 of 2024, wherein, no settlement
had arrived at between the parties and ultimately, the petitioner had
preferred aforesaid reference case before the Labour Court, which
came to be partly allowed and awarded compensation to the tune of
Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement, back wages, continuity of service
and other service benefits as full and final settlement.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award, the
petitioner has preferred the present petition.
4. Heard Mr. M. A. Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.H. S. Munshaw, leaned counsel for the respondents at length.
Perused the material available on record.
5. Mr.Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the
same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has further
submitted that the Labour Court has committed an error in partly
allowing the reference. He has submitted that the Labour Court has
not properly appreciated the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11019/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
as well as this Court and committed an error in awarding lump sum
compensation at Rs.50,000/-. He has also submitted that the action of
the respondents in terminating the service of the petitioner is against
the provisions of Section 25(F), (G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes
Act (for short "the Act") and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to
reinstate with continuity of service. He has submitted that the Labour
Court ought to have passed the impugned award of reinstatement
along with the back wages instead of awarding lump sum amount of
Rs.50,000/-. He has submitted that the amount of compensation
awarded by the Labour Court was not paid by the respondents. He
has submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed and the
impugned award deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6. Mr.Munshaw, learned counsel for the respondents has objected
the petition and submitted that the Labour Court has not committed
any error while awarding Rs.50,000/- towards lump sum
compensation. He has submitted that there was no documentary
evidence on record, while deciding the Reference, the Labour Court
has come to the conclusion that there was breach of Sections 25(F),
25(g) and 25(H) of the Act. He has submitted that the Labour Court
has partly allowed the Reference by awarding lump sum amount of
compensation and, therefore, the same is just and proper and no
interference is required to be called for.
7. Considering the submissions canvassed by learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties and the impugned award passed
by the Labour Court, it appears that the Labour Court has rightly
appreciated the evidence while coming to the conclusion and without
there being any rebuttal, on the other hand, the Labour Court has
awarded Rs.50,000/- which is erroneous. In view of the decision of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11019/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State
Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited Versus Suresh S/o
Dadarao Gadge reported in (2015) 4 SCC 542 and the oral order
dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023 and allied appeals more
particularly para - 10, this Court is of the opinion that the purpose
would be served if lump sum amount of Rs.3,00,000/- awarded by the
Labour Court is required to be enhanced.
8. The relevant para - 10 of the oral order dated 18.04.2024
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal
No. 908 of 2023 and allied appeals reads thus:-
"10. Having come to the conclusion that the lump sum
compensation would be appropriate remedy for the families
of the deceased workmen, the other aspects which comes
for consideration is quantum of lump sum compensation.
Though learned advocate Mr. Bhatt has contended that
there was delay in preferring the complaint and the
subsequent reference, it can be observed from the
pleadings that the averments with regard to delay and
laches in preferring the reference were not made before the
labour court as well as the learned Single Judge. Therefore,
the argument of learned advocate Mr. Bhatt with regard to
delay and laches in preferring reference cannot be
countenanced and what needs to be seen is that almost all
the workmen have put in 16-20 years of service for the
respondent and their services were terminated without
following due procedure of law. Therefore, the families of
the deceased workmen needs to be compensated
proportionally as to the number of years of service put in by
them. However, in order to balance the equation, we have
considered to give effect of delay in preferring the reference
while enhancing the amount of compensation. 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:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11019/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
Sr.No. Total no. of years for lump Amount of lump sum
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
9. Now, considering the materials placed on record and the
peculiar facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that instead of
granting any back wages and reinstatement in service as prayed for,
it would be just and proper to pay lump sum compensation of
Rs.2,50,000/- to the workman, which will serve the ends of justice.
10. With the aforesaid conclusion, the petition stands allowed in
part. The impugned award passed by the Labour Court is hereby
quashed and set aside and the award is modified accordingly. An
amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as lump sum compensation and amount of
Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Labour Court shall be paid to the
workman by the employer after proper verification of the identity and
bank details through RTGS within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of the writ of this order. There shall be no order as to
costs.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
