[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Sagar Rolling Mills Private Limited vs Ravindrakumar Sadhusharan Patel on 25 February, 2026
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/784/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 784 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/4311/2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 784 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 785 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4232 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 785 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4232 of 2025
================================================================
SAGAR ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
RAVINDRAKUMAR SADHUSHARAN PATEL & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
IG JOSHI(8726) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ANURADHA G RATHOD(7717) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR GK RATHOD(2386) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 25/02/2026
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.I.G.Joshi for
the appellant and learned advocate Ms.Anuradha
G. Rathod for the respondents.
2. By these Appeals under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent, 1865, the appellant has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/784/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026
undefined
challenged orders dated 08.04.2025 passed in
Special Civil Application Nos.4311 of 2025 and
4232 of 2025. The petitions preferred by the
appellant were dismissed by upholding the
Judgment and Award dated 24.10.2024 passed by
the learned Labour Court granting lumpsum
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in Reference
(L.C.A) No.108 of 2017 which was challenged in
Special Civil Application No.4311 of 2025 and
Judgment and Award dated 24.10.2024 passed by
the learned Labour Court in Reference (L.C.A)
No.107 of 2017 whereby, the Labour Court had
awarded Rs.6,00,000/- for the similarly
situated persons having service of about two
years more than the workman who was awarded
Rs.2,00,000/-. The said Award was challenged
in Special Civil Application No.4232 of 2025
by the appellant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/784/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026
undefined
3. At the outset, learned advocate
Mr.I.G.Joshi for the appellant submitted that
so far as the workman of Letters Patent Appeal
No.784 of 2025 is concerned, the appellant has
tendered a cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- in the name
of the workman, to the learned advocate for
the respondent-workman and therefore, the
order passed by the Labour Court and upheld by
the learned Single Judge is complied with and
therefore, under instructions, does not press
the Letters Patent Appeal No.784 of 2025.
4.1. So far as the Letters Patent Appeal
No.785 of 2025 is concerned, learned advocate
Mr.I.G.Joshi for the appellant submitted that
the learned Labour Court has not given any
justification for Award of Rs.6,00,000/- as
the respondent-workman has worked for about 14
years whereas, the similarly situated workman
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/784/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026
undefined
in the other matter who has worked for about
12 years, is awarded lumpsum compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/-.
4.2. Learned advocate Mr.I.G.Joshi
submitted that the amount of lumpsum
compensation awarded by the learned Labour
Court and upheld by the learned Single Judge
may be revised to any suitable amount
considering the period of service rendered by
the respondent-workman and has left the
reduction of amount at the discretion of the
Court.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate
Ms.Anuradha Rathod for the respondent
submitted that she is objecting to any
reduction of the amount of Award passed by the
learned Labour Court which is upheld by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/784/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026
undefined
learned Single Judge. It was pointed out that
the learned Labour Court after considering the
fact that the respondent was of young age and
had rendered services for about 13 years,
awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.
It was also pointed out by learned advocate
Ms.Anuradha Rathod that the learned Labour
Court has referred to and relied upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corp. & Ors
Versus Gitam Singh reported in (2014) 11 SCC
214 for award of interest. It was therefore
submitted that the appellant has not paid the
amount as awarded by the learned Labour Court
and therefore, this Appeal is required to be
dismissed summarily.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the
parties, it appears that the respondent-
workman is aged about 55 years as per the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/784/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026
undefined
affidavit filed on 13th September, 2025 and he
has also shown his unwillingness to be
reinstated in service as per the offer given
by the appellant.
7. It was further averred in the aforesaid
affidavit that he is engaged in the
miscellaneous work and is satisfied with his
present employment. Such affidavit filed in
view of the order passed by this Court (Coram:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.S.Supehia and Hon'ble
Mr.Justice R.T.Vachhani) on 07.08.2025 reads
as under :
"1. I say and submit that I was
employed with the appellant company in
January 2003 as an Operator. I was
illegally terminated on 26/08/2016
without being given any notice or
retrenchment compensation. I challenged
the said termination before the Labour
Court, Ahmedabad in Reference No.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/784/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026
undefined
107/2017. The Labour Court decided the
reference on merits and passed an award
on 24/10/2024, granting me a lump sum
compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- in lieu
of reinstatement and back wages. At the
time of termination, I was drawing a
salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month.
2. I further submit that the Hon'ble
Court directed me to file an affidavit
regarding whether I am ready and
willing to be reinstated in service or
not. The Hon'ble Court passed the said
order on 07/08/2025, and accordingly, I
am filing this affidavit in compliance
with the order.
3. At present, I am 55 years old. I am
engaged in miscellaneous work and am
satisfied with my present employment.
Therefore, I am not ready and willing
to be reinstated in the appellant
company. It is also pertinent to state
that the appellant company has not paid
me gratuity or other consequential
benefits. Moreover, in my deposition
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/784/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026
undefined
before the Labour Court, I had already
stated that I am not willing for
reinstatement. Hence, in view of the
above facts, I most respectfully pray
that this issue may kindly be
considered by this Hon'ble Court in the
interest of justice."
8. Therefore, considering the affidavit filed
by the respondent-workman, it appears that the
respondent-workman is engaged in the
miscellaneous work and is satisfied with his
present employment and his only intention is
to get the lumpsum compensation. Therefore,
considering the facts of the case as well as
the Award passed by the Labour Court for the
similarly situated person whereby, Labour
Court has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for service of
about 12 years and the fact that the
respondent herein, has rendered the service
for about 13 to 14 years, we deem it fit to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/784/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026
undefined
reduce the compensation awarded by the learned
Labour Court to Rs.3,00,000/- which shall be
paid by the appellant to the respondent within
a period of two weeks from today, failing
which, the interest as awarded by the learned
Labour Court would be payable at the rate of
9% per annum.
9. Both the Appeals are accordingly disposed
of.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
PALAK
