IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4947 of 2020 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4949 of 2020 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ================================================================ Approved for Reporting Yes No ================================================================ THE PADRA MUNICIPALITY Versus LILABEN PARSHOTTAMBHAI SOLANKI & ORS. ================================================================ Appearance: MR ABHIJIT RATHOD FOR MS NILAM N CHAUHAN(6635) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS ROSHNI PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ================================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 21/01/2026 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Since common issue is involved in the captioned writ petitions, the same are heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Present petitions are filed by the petitioner – Padra Municipality under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) challenging the order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the learned Presiding OfÏcer, Labour Court, Vadodara (hereinafter be p. 2 referred to as “the Labour Court”) in Reference (LCV) Nos. 302 of 2008 & 299 of 2008 respectively, whereby, the learned Judge has partly allowed the Reference filed by the respective respondents and directed the petitioner-Municipality to reinstate the respondent- workmen at their original post with continuity of service and 25% backwages and also awarded Rs.2,500/- towards cost of the reference. 3. Brief facts leading to the present petitions are that, considering the quantum of work and requirement of additional men power the petitioner-Municipality engaged the respondent-workmen as causal labourer on daily wage basis and assigned the work of drainage sweeper in sanitary department. That, neither the due procedure of law was followed in engaging the respondent-workmen as Rojamdar nor the respondent-workmen were engaged on vacant post of sanctioned establishment of the Municipality. That, the respondent- workmen had worked as casual labourer on daily wage basis intermittently when required. It is the case of the petitioner that, after 01.01.2008, the respondent-workmen were not engaged for the work as there was no requirement of additional manpower for the work and such non-engagement in service was treated as illegal termination by employer and the respondent-workmen had filed complaint before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vadodara ('the ACL' for short). That, the ACL vide order dated 29.05.2008 treated the same as Industrial Dispute and referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Vadodara for adjudication. That, the respondent-workmen had filed statement of claim before the Labour Court alleging the violation of provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. That, the petitioner- Municipality filed the written statement denying the claims of the respondent-workmen. After hearing all the concerned parties and p. 3 after examining the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record, the Labour Court passed the impugned judgment and award dated 25.06.2019 as aforesaid. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 25.06.2019 passed by the learned Presiding OfÏcer, Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference (LCV) Nos. 302 of 2008 & 299 of 2008 respectively, the petitioner-Municipality has preferred this petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. Heard Mr. Abhijit Rathod, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Nilam Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner-Municipality and Ms. Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent No.3 – Regional Commissioner of Municipalities. Though served, none has remained present on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 6. Learned counsel Mr. Rathod has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on record and the provisions of the Act and therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the Labour Court has not appreciated the fact that the municipality is an autonomous body constituted under the Gujarat Municipalities Act and is governed by the Gujarat Municipalities Act and Rules made there under in respect of the engagement of the employees and their service conditions and therefore, the provisions of I.D. Act is not applicable to the workman who was engaged by the Municipality and therefore also, the p. 4 impugned award and order is liable to be set aside. He has submitted that the Labour Court has committed a gross error in not appreciating the fact fact that the respondent-workmen were engaged intermittently considering the quantum of work and requirement of man-power and not against the sanctioned vacant post. He has further submitted that the Labour Court has grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that the respondent-workmen were not engaged after following due procedure nor their names were invited through employment exchange and in such circumstances, and more particularly the respondents cannot claim reinstatement though there was no work available with the Municipality. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr. Rathod has urged that the impugned award is required to be quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court. 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 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 p. 5 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 workmen. 7.1 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: Sr.No. 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 p. 6 7.2 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 Appeals stand dismissed as no ground is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.” 8. 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 7 years’ service, illegal appointment, no sanctioned set up etc., it will be in the fitness of things if, 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 p. 7 and final settlement of all the dues of the employees. 9. In view of above, both the petitions are partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 25.06.2019 passed by the learned Presiding OfÏcer, Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference (LCV) Nos. 302 of 2008 & 299 of 2008 respectively are hereby modified accordingly. An amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as lump sum compensation shall be paid to EACH of the respondent-workmen by the petitioner- Municipality, after proper verification of the identity and bank details through RTGS/NEFT, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this Order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly