State Of Guajrat vs Kantibhai Arjanbhai Bhamat on 27 January, 2026

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/3295/2025                                         ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                                      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3295 of 2025
                                                          With
                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11927 of 2025
                       ==========================================================
                                                      STATE OF GUAJRAT
                                                            Versus
                                                 KANTIBHAI ARJANBHAI BHAMAT
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS AGNEYA MANKAD AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       MR VAIBHAVKUMAR I BHOI(12030) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================
                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                                                            Date : 27/01/2026
                                                             ORAL ORDER

ORDER IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3295 of 2025

1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 15.7.2024 passed by Labour Court, Godhara in Reference (T) No. 55 of 2018 whereby the Labour Court has partly allowed the reference and granted reinstatement in favour of the workman without any backwages.

2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the respondent was working with the petitioner from 2007-2008 as Chowkidar and his service came to be terminated by the petitioner in August 2015 without following any due procedure. Therefore, a reference came to be filed before the Labour Court, Godhara being Reference (T) No. 55 of 2018.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/3295/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

undefined

2.1 The Labour Court, after hearing the parties and after evaluating the evidence placed on record, has passed impugned judgment and award. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has filed present petition.

3. Heard Ms. Agneya Mankad, learned AGP for the petitioner and Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel for the respondent workman.

4. Ms. Mankad, learned AGP for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is erroneous, bad in law and contrary to the facts and record of the case. She has submitted that the Labour Court has committed a serious error in holding that the respondent- workman was in continuous service with the petitioner as defined under Section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. She has further submitted that the Labour Court failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent-workman had not worked for a continuous period of 240 days in any year. She has submitted that the respondent was appointed as a daily wager and was not appointed against any sanctioned post and, therefore, was not entitled to claim any benefit of the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014. She has further submitted that, in his cross-examination, the respondent categorically deposed that he was not appointed through any prescribed recruitment procedure and that he was not issued any appointment letter. She has submitted that the Labour Court has committed a grave error in not appreciating the fact that the respondent had failed to produce any documentary

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/3295/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

undefined

evidence to establish that he had completed 240 days of service in any year.

4.1 In view of the above submissions, learned AGP urges before the Court that present petition may be allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the labour Court may be quashed and set aside.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel for the respondent-workman, has submitted that the Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and award. He has submitted that the Labour Court has passed the impugned judgment and award after properly appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record by both the sides and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. He has also submitted that the Labour Court has rightly held that the respondent-workman was in continuous service as defined under Section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that the said finding is supported by material on record. He urges before the Court that this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court.

6. Considering the submissions canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and the impugned judgment and 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 the aforementioned relief. In view of the decision of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/3295/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

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 and the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1091 of 2023 and allied appeals more particularly paras - 5 and 6, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved, if lump sump compensation is awarded in favour of the workman in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential reliefs.

7. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/3295/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

undefined

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:

Total no. of years for lump sum Amount of lump Sr.No. compensation sum 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. The relevant paras 5 and 6 of the oral order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1091 of 2023 and allied appeals reads thus:-

"5. Therefore, looking to the gap which intervened between the date of termination and the date of granting reinstatement, the approach of the learned Single Judge granting lump sum compensation cannot be faulted with.

6. Looking to the various aspects and factors which are considered above, like the nature of employment, time gap intervened, length of service, the compensation awarded to the tune could not be said to be unreasonable. Therefore, Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the Municipality on the question of amount of compensation as well as appeals preferred by the workmen seeking reinstatement are liable to be dismissed. However, in one of the matters being Letters Patent Appeal No. 701 of 2023 in Special Civil Application No. 18334 of 2021 in the case of workman being Koli Vairaginiben Ramkumar, we observe that the compensation given by the learned Single Judge is to the tune of Rs.6,25,000/- for 11 years of service. It can be observed from the order passed by the learned Single Judge that such amount is proportionally different from the other set of amounts which are given as compensation. However, for the identical years of work i.e. 11 years of service, the other workmen are granted an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- as lump sum compensation. Thus, we are inclined to modify the amount of lump sum compensation in Letters Patent Appeal No. 701 of 2023 to the tune of Rs.3,25,000/- from Rs.6,25,000/-. Hence, Letters Patent Appeal No. 701 of 2023 is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent, whereas, all the other Letters Patent

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/3295/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026

undefined

Appeals stand dismissed as no ground is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge."

9. Now, considering the materials placed on record and the peculiar facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that considering the tenure of 6 years, illegal appointment, no sanctioned set up etc., it will be in fitness of things that the award passed by the Labour court is suitably modified in light of the aforestated position of Law by granting lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of all the dues of the employee.

10. In view of the above, present petition is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 15.7.2024 passed by Labour Court, Godhara in Reference (T) No. 55 of 2018 is hereby modified accordingly. An amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as lump sum compensation 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.

ORDER IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11927 of 2025

In view of the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.3295 of 2025, present petition does not survive and the same stands dismissed.

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI