C/SCA/13222/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13222 of 2025 ================================================================ SHRAMYOGI LATE GORDHANBHAI SAMATBHAI VAGHELAS HEIR SON RAJUBHAI GORDHANBHAI VAGHELA Versus DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SHETRUNJI JAMNA KANTHA CANAL SUB- DIVISION & ANR. ================================================================ Appearance: JWALIT B SONEJI(7895) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 20/01/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Present petition is led by the petitioner under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the order dated 29.8.2025 passed by the Industrial Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) No.20 of 2021, whereby the Industrial Court has dismissed the reference and imposed cost of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner. 2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the dispute was referred for adjudication under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the Labour Commissioner, Gandhinagar, vide order dated 28.05.2021, to decide whether the workman - Mr. Rajubhai Gordhanbhai Vaghela was entitled to appointment as a Work-Charge Watchman. 2.1 The workman claimed compassionate appointment on p. 2 C/SCA/13222/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026 the ground that his father, a work-charge Watchman, expired while in service, and despite issuance of a demand notice dated 11.12.2020, no appointment was granted. 2.2 The employer opposed the claim contending that compassionate appointment had already been granted to the widow of the deceased employee in Class-IV service by order dated 17.09.2004, and therefore no further appointment could be claimed. 2.3 After a:ording opportunity to both parties and considering the evidence on record, the Industrial Tribunal rejected the reference led by workman vide impugned award dated 29.08.2025 passed in Reference (IT) No. 20 of 2021 with exemplary cost. Being aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner has led the present petition under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard Mr. Jwalit B. Soneji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Roshni Patel, learned AGP for the respondent No.1 4. Mr. Soneji, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned award passed by the Industrial Court is ex-facie illegal, unjust, unfair and contrary to the provision of law. He has submitted that p. 3 C/SCA/13222/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026 the award passed by the Industrial Court is against the evidence on record and against the settled legal position. He has submitted that the award is mechanical, non- speaking and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4.1 Mr. Soneji, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Industrial Court has committed error in directing the petitioner to deposit a penalty of Rs.25,000/- as there is no provision under the I.D. Act or the Rules framed thereunder which empowers the Industrial Court to impose such a monetary penalty on a workman merely for raising a reference. 4.2 Mr. Soneji, learned counsel for the petitioner urges before the Court that the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court may be quashed and set aside and present petition may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Patel, learned AGP for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the impugned order has been passed after due consideration of all relevant facts, documents, and submissions made by the parties. She has submitted that the Industrial Court has recorded detailed ndings of fact, which are based on appreciation of evidence on record and do not call for any interference by this Court. Page 3 of 5 C/SCA/13222/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026 5.1 Ms. Patel, learned AGP for the respondent No.1 urges before this Court that the present petition may not be entertained and the same may be dismissed. 6. I have perused the document and relevant material placed on record. I have also gone through the record of the petition vis a vis the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court. 7. Having considered the record and proceedings of the Industrial Tribunal as well as the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court is of the opinion that the Industrial Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has correctly applied the settled principles governing compassionate appointment. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and cannot be claimed as a mode of inheritance. In the present case, it is an undisputed position that compassionate appointment had already been extended to the widow of the deceased employee in accordance with the prevailing Government policy and that she continued in service till her retirement. Once such bene t had already been granted to one dependent member of the family, no further claim for compassionate appointment could have been sustained. 8. This Court, therefore, does not nd any perversity, p. 5 C/SCA/13222/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026 illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned award insofar as the rejection of the reference on merits is concerned, warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. However, so far as the imposition of exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/- is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same appears to be excessive and not called for. Moreover, no speci c reasons have been recorded by the Industrial Tribunal to justify the imposition of exemplary costs. Hence, so far as observation of imposition of cost of Rs.25,000/- is concerned, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. So far as the merits of the petition are concerned, this Court, upon due consideration of the record and proceedings of the case, nds that the ndings recorded by the learned Industrial Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law. No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is pointed out which would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition is hereby dismissed. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI