C/LPA/1543/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1543 of 2022 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9821 of 2008 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1544 of 2022 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9822 of 2008 ========================================================== JAYSUKHBHAI DHIRUBHAI KAKADIYA Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR PH PATHAK(665) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 30/06/2025 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.9821 of 2005, whereby the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the captioned writ petition filed by the present respondents assailing the judgment and award dated 03.10.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Amreli, in Reference (LCA) No.34 of 2003. 2. It is the case of the appellant - Workman that he was illegally terminated from services by the respondent – Executive Engineer, which has culminated in Reference (LCA) No.34 of 2003. The Labour Court, Amreli, allowed the same vide award dated 03.10.2007, directing the C/LPA/1543/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 respondent – Executive Engineer to reinstate the appellant – Workman in service with continuity of service with 25% back wages. The award dated 03.10.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Amreli, was assailed by the respondent – Executive Engineer by filing Special Civil Application No.9821 of 2008. The learned Single Judge partly allowed Special Civil Application No.9821 of 2008 by ordering reinstatement of service and ordering compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand) by order dated 06.06.2022. 3. Ms. Kamani, learned advocate on behalf of Mr. P.H. Pathak, learned advocate for the appellant, submitted that the learned Single Judge has fallen in error in granting compensation since the termination of the appellant – Workman was in violation of the provisions of Sections 25(F), 25(G), and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- is too meager, and the appellant would be entitled to compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia Joint Hospital vs. Munna Prasad Saini, AIR 2021 SC 4400, and as observed in the judgment and order dated 28.12.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1683 of 2011, wherein, for a period of 5 years of service, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) has been awarded. 4. We have perused the award passed by the Labour Court and the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. As per the facts recorded in the award, the appellant – Workman was appointed as a Chowkidar in the year 1999 on a daily wage of Rs.45.30/-. Thereafter, the appellant – Workman was terminated on 31.07.2001. The Labour Court held the termination illegal in violation of the provisions of Section 25(F), C/LPA/1543/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 though it was submitted before us that the termination was in violation of the provisions of Sections 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, we find that in the award, the Labour Court has not even whispered about the termination being in violation of Sections 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge awarding the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-, as the termination was in violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. With regard to the issue of enhanced compensation, the learned advocate Ms. Kamani has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia (Supra). A bare perusal of the said judgment would reveal that in paragraph No.13 thereof, the Supreme Court has recorded that the Workman was not granted any wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is pertinent to note that in the decision before the Supreme Court, the Workman therein was appointed on a contractual basis as a Ward Boy, and it appears that he was getting a monthly salary of Rs.2950/- (Two Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty) in the year 2003. In the present case, the appellant was getting a daily wage of Rs.45.30/-, which would come to approximately Rs.1400/-. In the case before the Division Bench, we do not find any discussion with regard to the wages, which were paid as daily wages, and also, that the workman was paid wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. Looking at the overall facts, more particularly the wages at the time of termination and the payment of wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act for the intervening period, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any infirmity or illegality in awarding an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation. Page 3 of 4 C/LPA/1543/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 7. The Letters Patent Appeal fails and hence, the same is rejected. (A. S. SUPEHIA, J) (R. T. VACHHANI, J) MVP/49-50 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 11/07/2025 10:54:43