C/SCA/1351/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1351 of 2021 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/- ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No No ========================================================== CHIEF OFFICER, UDAY RAJESHBHAI NASEET Versus MANUBHAI BABUBHAI KUMBHAR & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR MB PARIKH(576) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 DEVANGI B SOLANKI(8888) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 03/12/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Present petition is led by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act [hereinafter be referred to as “the ID Act”] challenging the impugned award dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Industrial Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) No.33 of 2007 whereby the Industrial Court has dismissed the said reference qua respondent No.1 and partly allowed the reference qua respondent No.2. 2. Short facts of the present case are that the respondents C/SCA/1351/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 have been serving as Safai Workers since 01-08-1994 and 3.8.2004 after being legally recruited. Though they perform permanent and continuous duties identical to permanent employees, they are treated as daily-rated sta7 and paid only minimum wages. This amounts to unfair labour practice and violation of Articles 14 and 16. Junior employees have been regularised and vacant posts exist. In this regard reference came to be led before the Industrial Court being Reference (IT) No.33 of 2007 which came to be rejected qua present respondent No.1 and partly allowed qua respondent No.2 by the Industrial Court vide order dated 16.10.2019. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned award, the petitioner - Nagar Palika has preferred the present petition. 4. Heard Mr.Parikh, learned counsel for the petitioner and, Ms. Devangi B. Solanki, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material placed on record. 5. Mr. Parikh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has also submitted that the impugned award passed by the Industrial Court is unjust, improper, illegal and contrary to the settled provisions of law, and therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside. He has also submitted that the Industrial Court has failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence of the petitioner in its true spirit. He has submitted that the Industrial Court ought to have considered the a7idavit led by the o7icer of the petitioner Nagar Palika at Exh.18 wherein the o7icer of the C/SCA/1351/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 Nagar Palika has stated that nancial position of the petitioner Nagar Palika is not good and six crore dues lying on the petitioner Nagar Palika. He has submitted that the respondents workmen were engaged in temporary basis and working for few hours per days as and when it is required with the petitioner Nagar Palika. He has submitted that the respondents workmen being Hangami part-timer would not be entitled for permanency and regular pay scale and other bene ts. He has submitted that even, out of two workmen, the reference of Manubhai Babubhai Kumbhar i.e. respondent No.1 was set aside by the Industrial Court on the ground of delay in raising the dispute. He has submitted that in view of the above submissions, present petition may be allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Industrial Court may be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, Ms, Solanki, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Industrial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and award. She has submitted that though they discharge permanent and regular duties identical to those performed by permanent employees, they are unjustly treated as daily-rated workers and are paid only minimum wages. She has submitted that permanent employees doing the same work are paid higher wages and enjoy full service bene ts, which are denied to these workmen. She has submitted that this discriminatory treatment amounts to unfair labour practice and violates the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. She has submitted that despite permanent posts being available, the Nagar Palika has continued these C/SCA/1351/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 workmen as daily wagers, keeping them under constant threat of termination and causing mental stress. She has submitted that even junior employees have been made permanent while these senior workmen remain temporary. 7. Considering the submissions canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Industrial Court, it appears that the Industrial Court has rightly rejected the reference of the respondent No.1 on the ground of delay. It also appears that the Industrial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence while partly allowing the reference qua respondent No.2, however, this Court is of the opinion that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, lump sum compensation is required to be awarded to the respondent No.2. In view of the decision of the 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, I am of the opinion that the respondent No.2 is entitled to get lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. 8. The relevant para – 10 of the oral order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in C/SCA/1351/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 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 e'ect 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: Sr.N o. Total no. of years for lump sum compensation Amount of lump 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 9. The relevant paras 5 and 6 of the oral order dated C/SCA/1351/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 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 di'erent 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 Appeals stand dismissed as no ground is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.” 10. Now, considering the materials placed on record and the peculiar facts of this case, it would be just and proper to pay lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- to the C/SCA/1351/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 respondent No.2, which will serve the ends of justice. So far as respondent No.1 is concerned this Court is of the opinion that the Industrial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the reference of the respondent No.1 and therefore, the impugned award is hereby con rmed qua respondent No.1 11. However, so far as respondent No.2 is concerned, present petition is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award 16.10.2019 passed by the Industrial Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) No.33 of 2007 is hereby modi ed qua respondent No.2. An amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as lump sum compensation shall be paid to respondent No.2 by the employer after proper veri cation 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. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Sd/- (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: SURESHKUMAR MOTIBHAI SOLANKI(HC00208), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 11/12/2025 17:20:56