IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3164 of 2025 ================================================================ GANESH LAXMI PROCESSORS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus SHYAMLAL RAMLAKHAN VERMA ================================================================ Appearance: MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 17/02/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned counsel Mr. U.T. Mishra, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent- workman. 2. Present petition is !led by the petitioner – Company under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24.05.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Surat in T. Application No. 662 of 2004, whereby, the learned Judge has partly allowed the application !led by the respondent-workman and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman in service with 50% back wages, and the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Appeal (I.C.) No. 1 of 2024, whereby, the learned Tribunal has rejected the appeal preferred by the present petitioner. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the respondent-workman approached the Labour Court, Surat by way of p. 2 !ling T. Application No. 662 of 2004 inter alia alleging that he was serving in the petitioner-Company as Jigar Operator in Dyeing Department since last eight years and he was illegally terminated by the petitioner. That, the respondent-workman had never served the petitioner at any point of time and there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. That, in his cross-examination, the respondent-workman has admitted that he was earning daily wage of Rs. 200/- by doing labour work. That, the respondent-workman did not produce any evidence to show any employer-employee relationship, however, the Labour Court held that respondent-workman was illegally terminated from service and passed the impugned award dated 24.05.2017 directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman in service with 50% back wages. That, the respondent-workman !led Recovery Application under Section 33C(2) being No. 71 of 2018, wherein, the Labour Court directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 3,14,554/- along with cost of Rs. 5,000/- by order dated 18.11.2021. Being aggrieved by and dissatis!ed with the award dated 24.05.2017, the petitioner !led an appeal being Appeal (IC) No. 1 of 2024 before the Industrial Tribunal, Surat along with application for condonation of delay, wherein, after condoning the delay, appeal was heard on merits and vide impugned order dated 30.09.2024 the Tribunal has rejected the appeal. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatis!ed with the impugned orders dated 24.05.2017 passed by the Labour Court and 30.09.2024 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner–Company and Mr. U.T. Mishra, learned counsel appearing p. 3 for the respondent-workman. 6. Learned counsel Mr. Dave has submitted that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on record and the provisions of the Act and therefore, the same are required to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the Labour Court has not considered the fact that the respondent-workman had failed to produce any document to show employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent-workman. He has submitted that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent cannot be allowed to produce documents after evidence of both the sides were over and for the !rst time in the year 2018, the so-called documents narrating that on a complaint made by the respondent through union, action was taken, were placed on record. He has submitted that the respondent-workman had not produced any documents before the Labour Court to show that he had made e?orts to !nd out alternative job and thus, the Labour Court has committed a serious error in granting reinstatement with 50% back wages, which is absolutely unjust, erroneous and illegal. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has mechanically con!rmed the !ndings recorded by the Labour Court and no independent !ndings have been recorded by the Tribunal and thus, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that it has to re-appreciate the evidence threadbare and has to record its own !ndings. He has submitted that the Tribunal without framing independent issues, has mechanically reproduced the !ndings recorded by the Labour Court and con!rmed the order in a mechanical manner, which is illegal, erroneous and unjust. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr. Dave has urged that the impugned orders are required to be p. 4 quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed. 7. As against that, learned counsel Mr. Mishra, appearing for the respondent-workman, has opposed the present petition and submitted that there is no any in!rmity or any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the present petition. Learned counsel Mr. Mishra has referred and relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023 and other allied matters, more particularly the observations made in paras-7, 10 and 11 and urged that appropriate orders be passed. 8. 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 orders passed by the Courts below. 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, which is con!rmed by the Tribunal. 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 p. 5 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. 8.1 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 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.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 8.2 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 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.” 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 8 years’ service, it will be in !tness of things if the award passed by the Labour Court is suitably modi!ed in light of the p. 7 aforestated position of Law by granting lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- towards full and !nal settlement of all the dues of the employee. 10. In view of above, present petition is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 24.05.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Surat in T. Application No. 662 of 2004 is hereby modi!ed accordingly. An amount of Rs.3,25,000/- as lump sum compensation shall be paid to the workman by the employer after proper veri!cation 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. There shall be no order as to costs. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly