IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16364 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ============================================================= Approved for Reporting Yes No ============================================================= M/S. MADHU SILICA PVT. LTD. Versus BAHADURBHAI HARJIBHAI CHAVDA ============================================================= Appearance: MR DG SHUKLA(1998) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. KULDEEP D VAIDYA(7045) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ============================================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 06/03/2026 JUDGMENT 1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Kuldeep Vaidya, learned counsel for the respondent waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for !nal hearing today. 2. Present petition is !led by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking following reliefs: p. 1 “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned Award dated 23.05.2025 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) Case No.41 of 2009 as being illegal, unjust, without jurisdiction and without authority in law; (B) Pending hearing and .nal disposal of the present petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to grant the interim relief staying the impugned Award dated 23.05.2025 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) Case No.41 of 2009; (C) An ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of paragraphs 9 (B) above may kindly be granted; (D) Any other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem .t and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the respondent workman was working with the petitioner Company w.e.f. 15.10.2004 and he was issued notice to submit explanation on 25.05.2005 to which he gave an explanation on 21.06.2005. That, the respondent workman had thereafter stopped reporting for duties without any intimation and without prior permission of his Superior O7cer. That, the respondent had worked only for 151 days with the petitioner. That, the respondent raised an industrial dispute after more than 3 years and 8 months alleging that he was orally terminated from the services from 01.06.2005 before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. That, the said industrial dispute came to be referred to the Labour Court, Bhavnagar being Reference (L.C.B.) Case No. 41 of 2009 whereby, the Labour Court vide award dated 23.05.2025 directed the petitioner to pay lump sum p. 2 compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement in services with back wages along with cost of Rs.5,001/- to the respondent. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatis!ed with the impugned award dated 23.05.2025 passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 5. Heard learned counsels Mr. DG Shukla and Mr. Harsheel Shukla for the petitioner and Mr. Kuldeep Vaidya, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials available on record. 6. Learned counsel Mr. Shukla has submitted that the impugned 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. He has submitted that the Labour Court did not consider the fact that the reference was !led by the respondent after a delay of about 4 years and was thus, barred by delay and laches. He has submitted that the respondent has also not given any explanation regarding the delay caused in raising the dispute after 4 years. He has submitted that the Labour Court did not consider the fact that the respondent had submitted in his Written Statement that he had voluntarily abandoned the services and, therefore, it cannot be said to be retrenchment from services. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr. Shukla has urged that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is required to be quashed and set aside and the present p. 3 petition is required to be allowed. 7. As against that, learned counsel Mr. Vaidya, appearing for the respondent-workman, 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. He has submitted that the impugned 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!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. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also considered the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. Considering the submissions canvassed by both the sides, I am of the opinion that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court stands modi!ed to the extent that the respondent shall be paid lump sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in lieu of Rs.3,00,000/- originally awarded by the Labour Court. 9. 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!ed accordingly. An amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as lump sum compensation shall be paid to the workman by the employer after proper veri!cation of the identity and bank details of the p. 4 workman through RTGS/NEFT within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) ANUSRI p. 5 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 11/03/2026 16:44:37