IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14912 of 2024 ========================================================== MANAGER SPENCERS RP SANJIV GOENKA GROUP Versus DIWAN UVESH AYUBSHA ========================================================== Appearance: MR NILESH M SHAH(780) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR JIGAR L PATEL(11596) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 02/02/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Present petition is 昀椀led by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking following reliefs: “(A) To issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other writ or writs or orders or directions. (B) To quash and/or set aside impugned Award, dt.21-06-2024 passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara in Ref. (LCV) No.413/2016. (C) During the pendency of this petition, by way of interim order to grant stay order against implementation and/or execution of impugned Award dt.21-06-2024 passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara in Ref.(LCV) No.413/2016. (D) To grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deems 昀椀t in the interest of justice. (E) To allow this petition with costs.” p. 1 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the respondent was working as a customer service associate (CSA) in the petitioner company from 08.05.2014 in FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) department. On 20.12.2015, the respondent was orally terminated from the services by the petitioner for which the respondent had also 昀椀led a police complaint. Thereafter, the respondent had raised dispute being Ref. (LCV) No.413/16 whereby the Labour Court vide award dated 26.11.2019 directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and 30% back wages. That, the petitioner had 昀椀led Misc. Application to set aside ex-party award and to restore the reference case with delay application where the said delay application came to be allowed. Thereafter, the restoration application was also allowed on 13.12.2022 on the condition to pay costs of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent, which was paid on 13.01.2023. The Labour Court, Vadodara vide award dated 21.06.2024 partly allowed the reference directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and 20% back wages. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatis昀椀ed with the impugned award dated 21.06.2024 passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 4. Heard Mr. Nilesh M Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jigar L Patel, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Shah has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and p. 2 material on record and the provisions of the Act and therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the Labour Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondent had completed 240 days continuous service even though no documentary evidence had been produced to the support the said claim. He has submitted that the Labour court had not considered the fact that the respondent himself had abandoned his job. He has submitted that the Labour Court had erred in relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of Minaxiben Laxmanbhai Paraliya Vs. State of Gujarat, Dineshbhai Dhudabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hemant Babruvahan Parchake Vs. The Social Welfare O昀케cer, Nagpur as the aforesaid judgments were not applicable to the present case. He has submitted that the Labour Court has erred in not considering the fact that the respondent had admitted in his cross examination that after termination, he had not made any e昀昀ort to get employed and therefore, the principle of no work no pay is applicable to the present case. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr. Shah has urged that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is required to be quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed. 6. As against that, learned counsel Mr. Patel, appearing for the respondent, has opposed the present petition and submitted that there is no any in昀椀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. He has submitted that the impugned judgment and p. 3 award passed by the Labour Court is in consonance with the settled principles of law and is passed after following due procedure and therefore, the same is required to be con昀椀rmed and the present petition is required to be dismissed and no interference is required to be called for while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Considering the submissions canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and the impugned 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. 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 where it has been held that in all the case where the termination is found illegal, the order of reinstatement cannot be passed automatically and 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 the purpose would be served if lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- is awarded. 8. The relevant para – 10 of the oral order dated 18.04.2024 p. 4 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昀昀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 9. 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 p. 5 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昀昀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.” 10. Now, considering the materials placed on record and the peculiar facts of this case and considering the fact that the respondent had only worked for about 18 months and was relieved from work and he has been out of work for more than 10 years, this Court is of the opinion that instead of granting any back wages and reinstatement in service as prayed for, it would be just and proper to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- as full and 昀椀nal settlement to the respondent, which will serve the ends of justice. 11. With the aforesaid conclusion, the petition stands allowed in part. The impugned award passed by the Labour Court is hereby quashed and set aside and the award is modi昀椀ed accordingly. An amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as lump sum compensation shall be paid to the respondent by the petitioner p. 6 after proper veri昀椀cation of the identity and bank details through RTGS within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. Notice is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) ANUSRI p. 7 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ANUSRI VASU(HC02352), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 05/02/2026 16:59:14