IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5850 of 2023 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17221 of 2023 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ================================================================ Approved for Reporting Yes No ================================================================ STATE OF GUJARAT Versus MANTRI SHRI, CENTER OF TRADES UNION & ORS. ================================================================ Appearance: MS SWEETY SAMARA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR HANNAN A QURESHI(11351) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ================================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 22/01/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT ORDER IN SCA/5850/2023 1. Present petition is led by the petitioner – State of Gujarat under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and award dated 08.03.2022 passed by the Industrial Court, Rajkot (hereinafter be referred to as “the Labour Court”) in Reference (I.T.) No. 52 of 2017, whereby, the learned Judge has partly allowed the Reference led by the respondent-Union and directed the petitioner to pay the heirs of the respondent bene ts as prescribed under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and also directed to pay di7erential amount of arrears from 21.01.2013 to 31.12.2016. p. 2 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the respondent namely, Shri Saiyadali Husainmiya was working with the petitioner as part-time "safai kamdar" since 1983 and he was not paid bene ts like Dearness Allowance, LTC and other allowances. That, the respondent-workman preferred Reference being Reference (LCJ) No. 208 of 2003 before the learned Labour Court, Junagadh, wherein the learned Labour Court, Junagadh vide Order dated 08.06.2012 had directed to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman in service, with continuity of service, with 20% of back-wages and cost of Rs.1000/-. Against which, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 11375 of 2012 before this Court, wherein, this Court vide Order dated 20.03.2013 partly allowed the petition and modi ed the order and extent that, respondent-workman should be reinstated in service with continuity of service but without any back-wages. That, as per the directions of this Court, the respondent-workman was reinstated in service with continuity of service, without any back- wages. That, the respondent-workman was reinstated in view of the Order of this Court in the year 2013 and therefore, he worked from 21.01.2013 to 31.12.2016 as part-timer as water barer. That thereafter, on 31.12.2016, upon attaining age of superannuation the respondent-workman retired. That, as per the respondent-workman, the bene ts of Second and Fourth Saturday as well as bene ts of Leave Encashment at the time of retirement were not extended and therefore, he led aforesaid Reference Application before Industrial Tribunal being Reference (I.T.) No. 52 of 2017. That, the petitioner led written statement before the Industrial Tribunal, Junagadh opposing claim statement. That, the Industrial Court, Rajkot after hearing both the sides partly allowed the Reference Application Vide Judgment dated 08.03.2022 and directed the petitioner to release p. 3 bene ts calculating service of respondent-workman as 8 hours per day, instead of 3 hours per day within 30 days of passing of the Judgment. That, when respondent-workman was reinstated on 21.01.2013, he was reinstated for 3 hours only and he had accepted the same. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned award dated 08.03.2022 passed by the Industrial Court, Rajkot in Reference (I.T.) No. 52 of 2017, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. Heard Ms. Sweety Samara, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the petitioner – State and Mr. Hannan Qureshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. 5. Learned AGP Ms. Samara 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. She has submitted that as per the Government Resolution dated 01.04.2001, all the Class-IV posts are to be lled up by out-sourcing and now there is no permanent post available and therefore, the order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court is erroneous and without proper application of mind. She has submitted that the Labour Court has not considered the fact that the petitioners are running special institutions which are funded by State Government on grant and therefore, there is limited budget available with the petitioners. She has submitted that the respondent-workman had failed to establish before the Labour Court that his appointment p. 4 was regular or that he had given more than ve years’ of continuous service and therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court is erroneous, illegal and unjust. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned AGP Ms. Samara has urged that the impugned award is required to be quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed. At the outset, learned AGP Ms. Samara has submitted that upto 2013, the petitioner has paid the amount to the original workman. 6. As against that, learned counsel Mr. Qureshi, appearing for the respondents, has opposed the present petition and submitted that there is no any in rmity or any illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court and therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the present petition. Learned counsel Mr. Qureshi 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. 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 p. 5 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 interest of justice would be subserved, if lump sump compensation is awarded in favour of the workman. 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 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 Amount of lump sum p. 6 compensation 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 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 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.” 8. Now, considering the materials placed on record and the peculiar facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that considering p. 7 the tenure of 3 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 granting lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards full and nal settlement of all the dues of the employee. 9. In view of above, present petition is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 08.03.2022 passed by the Industrial Court, Rajkot in Reference (I.T.) No. 52 of 2017 is hereby modi ed accordingly. An amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as lump sum compensation shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased respondent-workman by the petitioner, 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. The amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- shall be disbursed in equal proportion amongst the legal heirs of the deceased respondent-workman. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. ORDER IN SCA/17221/2023 1. This is a cross petition led by the legal heirs of the original workman challenging the very same judgment and award dated 08.03.2022 passed by the Industrial Court, Rajkot in Reference (I.T.) No. 52 of 2017. 2. Since the petition led by the State of Gujarat is partly allowed as aforesaid, no order is required to be passed in the present petition and the same is disposed of. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly