IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15377 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/- ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No No ========================================================== MAHENDRASINH PRABHATSINH GOHIL SINCE DECD THROUGH LH MINABEN WD/O MAHENDRAISNH GOHIL Versus DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR DIPAK R DAVE FOR NIDHI K TRIVEDI(9003) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR PRADIP J PATEL(5896) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 03/03/2026 JUDGMENT 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Pradip J. Patel learned counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents. 2. Present petition is led by the petitioner under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act challenging the impugned award dated 30.3.2024 in Reference (T) No. 90 of 2004 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra, whereby the Labour Court has partly allowed the reference and granted p. 2 lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased workman. 3. Facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner came to be appointed as Rojamdar Driver in the o7ice of the respondent from 11.6.1998 and the husband of the petitioner has served for more than 240 days with the respondent. After more than 6 years of service, by oral order dated 15.2.2003, the husband of the petitioner came to be terminated from service on the ground that the husband of the petitioner raised a demand for grant of benets of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 3.1 Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner had approached Commissioner of Labour who referred the dispute to Labour Court, Godhra for adjudication on merits. During the pendency of reference the husband of the petitioner expired and therefore, legal heirs i.e. widow of the deceased was joined as party in the proceedings. After hearing both the sides, the Labour Court vide order dated 30.3.2024 partly allowed the said reference and awarded aforementioned relief. 3.2 Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has preferred present petition. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 5. Mr. Dipak Dave, learned counsel for Ms. Nidhi K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same p. 3 facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has submitted that the award passed by the Labour Court is illegal, unjust and without appreciation of the facts of the case and evidence place on record. He has submitted that the Labour Court has passed the award against the express provisions of law, evidence on record and principles of natural justice. He has submitted that without any basis, the labour Court has awarded meager compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- despite clear-cut unfair labour practice on part of the respondent and in spite of clear-cut violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has submitted that the labour Court has failed to appreciate that the husband of the petitioner is required to be granted benet of continuity of service and on the said basis, until the date of death, he was required to be granted back wages and after the date of his death, at least, pensionary benets ought to have been granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges before the Court that present petition may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the respondents has objected the petition and submitted that the Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment. He has submitted that infact the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is in consonance with the provisions of law and hence prayed for rejection of the petition. He has submitted that after taking into account all the relevant aspects and after going through the relevant material placed on record the Labour Court has passed the p. 4 order and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court. 7. 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 lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. 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 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 sum compensation awarded by the labour Court in favour of the widow of the deceased is enhanced. 8. 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 p. 5 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 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 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 p. 6 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.” 10. Now, considering the materials placed on record and the peculiar facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that instead of granting any other relief, it would be just and proper to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the legal heir i.e. widow of the deceased workman in lieu of all other consequential benets. 11. In view of the above, present petition is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Labour Court is hereby is modied accordingly. An amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as lump sum compensation in lieu of all other consequential benets shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased i.e. widow of the workman by the employer after proper verication 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. If the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Labour Court is paid by the employer then the same shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and if the said amount p. 7 is not paid then the lump sum amount which is awarded by this Court shall be paid to the widow of the deceased. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI