IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9109 of 2021 ================================================================ SURYAPAL HARISHCHANDRA SOLANKY Versus THE ADMINISTRATOR OF PRAYOJNA & ANR. ================================================================ Appearance: MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS AGNEYA MANKAD, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 09/02/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Present petition is led by the petitioner – employee under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) against the judgment and award dated 19.07.2018 passed by the learned Presiding O/cer, Labour Court, Godhra (hereinafter be referred to as “the Labour Court”) in Reference (T) No. 144 of 2015, whereby, the learned Judge has partly allowed the reference led by the petitioner-employee by granting lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-, in lieu of reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages. 2. Brief facts leading to the present petition are that, the petitioner-workman had worked at the post of Rojamdar Labourer in the respondent establishment from 01.01.2005 to December 2008. That, the petitioner had demanded for documents concerned of employment with respondent, as his services were terminated orally p. 2 by respondent in December, 2005 in arbitrary manner and in gross violation of settled provisions of law. Therefore, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Godhra being Reference (T) No.144 of 2015, wherein, the petitioner led a statement of claim for setting aside the order of termination and respondent led a written statement through its advocate to defend its action, moreover petitioner led oral evidence before the Labour Court to prove his case, while respondent had not done anything. That, the Labour Court examined the real dispute between the parties in detailed manner and also took adverse inference against respondent though facts proved before the Labour Court that respondent intentionally did not provide documents of three years relating to employment to the petitioner by observing that Section 25 (F) and Section 25 (G) are violated by the respondent while terminating the services of the petitioner. That, the Labour Court after arriving at ndings that termination of services of petitioner was in violation of Section 25 (F) of the Act, however, denied reinstatement with full back wages to the petitioner while passing the impugned judgment and award dated 19.07.2018 and partly allowed the reference by granting limp sum compensation of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 5000/- as a cost of litigation to the petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned award dated 19.07.2018 passed by the learned Presiding O/cer, Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 144 of 2015, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. Heard Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf p. 3 of the petitioner-employee and Ms. Agneya Mankad, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent- Authority. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Dave has submitted that, pursuant to the order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioner has already been reinstated in service with continuity of service and, therefore, so far as the prayer for back wages is concerned, he is not pressing the same. Learned counsel Mr. Dave has produced a copy of order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the respondent No.1, reinstating the petitioner in service, the same is ordered to be taken on record. 6. Learned AGP Ms. Mankad, appearing for the respondent- authority, under instructions, submits that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner-workman has been reinstated in service with continuity of service and therefore, appropriate orders may be passed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. On perusal of the record it appears that, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.02.2022, by way of an interim relief, had directed the respondent-authority to reinstate the petitioner in service and also further clari ed that the reinstatement shall be subject to the further orders passed by this Court and also directed the respondent- authority to pass appropriate orders of reinstatement on or before the next date of hearing, failing which, this Court would be constrained to take coercive action against the respondent. Pursuant to the aforesaid p. 4 order, the respondent-authority vide order dated 27.09.2023 has already reinstated the present petitioner-workman with continuity of service and therefore, the petitioner-workman will not claim any backwages. Considering all these aspects and considering the order dated 19.12.2025 passed in similar set of facts in Special Civil Application No.14929 of 2020, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is required to be modi ed. 8. In the result, the present petition is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 19.07.2018 passed by the learned Presiding O/cer, Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 144 of 2015 is hereby modi ed to the extent that the petitioner shall be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but, without backwages. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly