IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1320 of 2025 ============================================================= SOVANJI VALAJI THAKARADA Versus RANGE FOREST OFFICER & ANR. ============================================================= Appearance: MR ND SONGARA(2198) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS JANHVI N SONGARA(13254) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ============================================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 29/01/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking following reliefs: “(A) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 06.09.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court, Palanpur in Reference (LCP) No. 10 of 2020 qua denying the reinstatement with continuity of service and with full back wages for intervening period and with all consequential benefits. (B) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to allow the Reference (LCP) No. 10 of 2020 filed by the petitioner by granting reinstatement with continuity of service and with full back wages for intervening period and with all consequential benefits. (C) Any other and further relief may kindly be granted as Your Lordships deem fit, just and proper in the interest of justice.” p. 1 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the petitioner - workman was working as a daily wager Nursery Labourer (Protected Workman) with the respondent since 01.02.2000. On 01.06.2018, the petitioner was orally terminated from the services by the respondent without giving any notice, notice pay and/or without paying any retrenchment compensation. That, the petitioner had put in more than 17 years of continuous service with the respondent and had completed 240 days service in each year. That, the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute being Reference (LCP) No. 10 of 2020 before the Labour Court, Palanpur. That, the Forest and Environment Department, State of Gujarat had issued GR dated 15.09.2014, whereby, the Government had decided to grant the benefits of GR dated 17.10.1988 to those daily wagers who had completed 5 years service on or after 29.10.2010. That, the petitioner had filed Statement of Claim (Ex. 9) before the Labour Court, Palanpur inter alia praying that the respondents, without following the due procedure of law contemplated under Section 25(F), 25 (G) and 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had illegally and arbitrarily terminated the services of the petitioner. That, the respondent had filed Written Statement (Ex. 12) and statement showing the working days of the petitioner (Ex.17) before the Labour Court. That, the Labour Court, Palanpur, after hearing the parties passed an impugned Award dated 06.09.2024 in Reference (LCP) No. 10 of 2020, whereby, the Labour Court has awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards full and final settlement in lieu of p. 2 reinstatement, continuity of service and full back wages for intervening period. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 06.09.2024 passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the material available on record. 5. Mr. Songara, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned 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 erred and not considered the fact that the petitioner had put in more than 18 years of continuous service and completed 240 days in each year. He has submitted that though the Labour Court had categorically come to the conclusion that the termination of the petitioner was in violation of section 25 F, G and H of the ID Act, no relief of reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages was granted. He has submitted that the Labour Court had erred in interpreting the GR dated 15.09.2014 wherein the government had decided to engage new daily wagers from the date of the said resolution i.e. 15.09.2014. However, the petitioner was appointed prior to the date of GR and therefore, there was no p. 3 question of engaging as new daily wager. He has submitted that the employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and respondent had been proved by the petitioner and the Labour Court had also arrived at the same conclusion. He has submitted that the petitioner had filed production application before the Labour Court inter alia seeking certain documentary evidences to prove his case and which were in possession of the respondent however, the documents were not produced by the respondent. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr. Songara has urged that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is required to be quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed. 6. As against that, Ms.Patel, learned AGP appearing for the respondent, has opposed the present petition and submitted that there is no any infirmity or any illegality in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the present petition. She has submitted that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is in consonance with the settled principles of law and is passed after following due procedure and therefore, the same is required to be confirmed and the present petition is required to be dismissed and no interference is required to be called for while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Considering the submissions canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and the impugned award p. 4 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 Rs.1,00,000/- which is erroneous. 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, this Court is of the opinion that the purpose would be served if lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Labour Court is enhanced. 8. 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 p. 5 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 9. 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 p. 6 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 and considering the fact that the petitioner-workman had worked for 18 years, this Court is of the opinion that instead of granting any back wages and reinstatement in service as prayed for, it would be just and proper to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- as full and final settlement to the petitioner-workman, which will serve the ends of justice. 11. With the aforesaid conclusion, the petition stands allowed in part. The impugned award passed by the Labour Court is hereby quashed and set aside and the award is modified accordingly. An amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- as lump sum compensation shall be paid to the petitioner-workman by the respondent 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. If the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is paid by the respondent then the same shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount of Rs.7,50,000/- and if the said amount is not paid then the lump sum amount which is awarded by this Court shall be paid to the petitioner-workman. Notice is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) ANUSRI p. 7 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ANUSRI VASU(HC02352), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 03/02/2026 17:25:13