IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9944 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ================================================================ Approved for Reporting Yes No ================================================================ MANGABHAI NOGHABHAI ALIES NONGHABHAI ALGOTAR Versus BRTS SITY LINK, SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. ================================================================ Appearance: AAKASH D MODI(7449) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 02/03/2026 JUDGMENT 1. RULE. Learned counsel Mr. Yogi Gadhia, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.2. 2. 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”) challenging the judgment and award dated 16.04.2024 passed by the learned Presiding O4cer, Labour Court, Surat (hereinafter be referred to as “the Labour Court”) in Reference (T) No. 96 of 2019, whereby, the learned Judge has rejected the reference led by the present petitioner. p. 2 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the petitioner was working the with respondents as Driver and has continuously worked with the respondents from 16.12.2016 till the date of termination. That, the petitioner met with an accident on 26.01.2018 and sustained an eye injury. That, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated on 21.03.2018 without following the procedure as contemplated under provisions of law and therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Conciliation o4cer, Surat. That, the dispute could not be resolved; therefore, the appropriate government has referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Surat for further adjudication, which came to be registered as being Reference (T) Case No. 96 of 2019. That, after completion of the pleadings and evidence as well as hearing both the parties, the Labour Court, Surat passed an award dated 16.04.2024 in Reference (T) Case No. 96 of 2019 below Exh.50, whereby, the Labour Court rejected the Reference led by the present petitioner. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned award dated 16.04.2024 passed by the learned Presiding O4cer, Labour Court, Surat in Reference (T) No. 96 of 2019, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 5. Heard Mr. Aakash Modi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-employee and Mr. Yogi Gadhia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-employer. 6. Learned counsel Mr. Modi has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is illegal, unjust, p. 3 arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on record and the provisions of the Act and is based on assumption and presumption and therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the the Labour Court has not properly appreciated the evidences produced before the Labour Court and thus, the ndings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse and contrary to the facts and evidences available on record. He has submitted that though the petitioner had completed 240 days in service in a preceding year and had continuously worked with the respondent, however, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated by the respondents. He has further submitted that the respondents have not paid any compensation and no notice was issued to the petitioner before terminating form the services and thus, the respondents have not complied with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has submitted that the Labour Court has not considered the fact that the respondents have not issued/produced termination order and/or show cause notice to the present petitioner on ground of continuous illness and thus, in absence of the Medical Examination of employee by the Medical o4cer prior to termination of service, the termination of service of the petitioner is unfair, unjust, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. He has submitted that the petitioner met with an accident on 26.01.2018 and thereafter, the petitioner was undergoing treatment for vision of the right eye, however, without ascertaining the fact that loss of vision of right eye of the petitioner was permanent or temporary, and without any medical report of in support permanent/partial vision loss of right eye of the petitioner, the respondents employer have terminated the services of the petitioner, and hence, the impugned award is erroneous, illegal and unjust. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned p. 4 counsel Mr. Modi has urged that the impugned award is required to be quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed. Learned counsel Mr. Modi 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. 7. As against that, learned counsel Mr. Yogi Gadhia, appearing for the respondent-employer, has opposed the present petition and submitted that there is no any in rmity 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. However, learned counsel Mr. Gadhia was unable to controvert the observations made by the Division Bench and submitted 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 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 p. 5 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 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 p. 6 3 15-20 years Rs.7.5 lacs 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 2 years’ service, illegal appointment, etc., it will be in the tness of things if, the award passed by the Labour Court is suitably modi ed in light of the aforestated position of Law by p. 7 granting lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 16.04.2024 passed by the learned Presiding O4cer, Labour Court, Surat in Reference (T) No. 96 of 2019 is hereby modi ed accordingly. An amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as lump sum compensation shall be paid to the petitioner-workman by the respondent No.2-employer, after proper veri cation of the identity and bank details through RTGS/NEFT, within a period of four 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