STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH RANGE FOREST OFFICERversusPRABHAKARBHAI HIRJIBHAI CHAUDHARY

     C/SCA/10053/2025                               JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10053 of 2025


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================

             Approved for Reporting                Yes          No

================================================================
         STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH RANGE FOREST OFFICER
                              Versus
                PRABHAKARBHAI HIRJIBHAI CHAUDHARY
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MRUNAL DHOLARIA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                               Date : 03/03/2026

                                 JUDGMENT


1.       RULE returnable forthwith. Learned counsel Mr. Yogen Pandya,
waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent.


2.       Present petition is   led by the petitioner-State under Articles
226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”)
challenging the judgment and award dated 20.02.2024 passed by the
learned Presiding O3cer, Labour Court, Valsad (hereinafter be
referred to as “the Labour Court”) in Reference (LCV) No. 134 of 2016,
whereby, the learned Judge has partly allowed the Reference in favour
of the respondent-workman granting 50% in lieu of reinstatement and
consequential bene ts.


                                   Page 1 of 6
     C/SCA/10053/2025                           JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




3.       Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
respondent-workman was working with the petitioner department as a
Watchman since last ten years and drawing wages of Rs. 4,000/- per
month. It is alleged that, the services of the respondent-workman
came to be terminated orally on 01.07.2015 and therefore, the
respondent-workman led claim statement before the Labour Court,
Valsad. That, the petitioner opposed the reference by ling a detailed
Written Statement before the Labour Court, Valsad. After hearing all
the concerned parties and after examining the oral as well as
documentary evidence produced on record, the Labour Court passed
the impugned judgment and award dated 20.02.2024 in Reference
(LCV) No. 134 of 2016, whereby, the learned Judge partly allowed the
Reference as aforesaid.


4.       Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned judgment
and award dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Presiding O3cer,
Labour Court, Valsad in Reference (LCV) No. 134 of 2016, the
petitioner has preferred this petition.


5.       Heard Mr. Mrunal Dholaria, learned Assistant Government
Pleader, appearing for the petitioner-State and Mr. Yogen Pandya,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman.


6.       Learned AGP Mr. Dholaria 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, the same is required to be
quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the Labour Court has
not considered the fact that work was based on the grant issued by


                                 Page 2 of 6
     C/SCA/10053/2025                             JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




the High Authority and there was no permanent work available and
the petitioner had also produced relevant documents showing grants
issued by the High Authority from the period of 2012-2015, however,
without considering the aforesaid aspect the Labour Court has
granted compensation to the respondent which is without application
of mind and without proper apprehension of evidence. He has
submitted that the respondent-workman had not worked for 240 days
in a given year and therefore, there was no violation of provisions of
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. He has submitted that it was the primary
duty of the respondent-workman before the Labour Court to prove
that he had worked for 240 days however, no such documents were
produced before the Labour Court and therefore, the impugned award
passed by the Labour Court is erroneous, illegal and unjust and
without proper application of mind. Over and above the grounds
agitated in the memo of petition, learned AGP Mr. Dholaria has urged
that the impugned award is required to be quashed and set aside and
the present petition is required to be allowed.


7.       As against that, learned counsel Mr. Yogen Pandya, appearing
for the respondent, 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. Pandya 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.


8.       I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective


                                 Page 3 of 6
   C/SCA/10053/2025                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




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
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.

8.1    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


                                   Page 4 of 6
   C/SCA/10053/2025                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




        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:

                      Total no. of years for lump sum   Amount of lump sum
         Sr.No.
                               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


8.2    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


                                        Page 5 of 6
        C/SCA/10053/2025                                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




             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.”


9.          Now, considering the materials placed on record and the
peculiar facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that considering
the tenure of 10 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.


10.         In view of above, present petition is partly allowed. The
impugned judgment and award dated 20.02.2024 passed by the
learned Presiding O3cer, Labour Court, Valsad in Reference (LCV) No.
134 of 2016 is hereby modi ed accordingly. An amount of Rs.
3,00,000/- as lump sum compensation shall be paid to the
respondent-workman by the petitioner-State, 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. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to
costs.



                                                                   (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: DOLLYBEN CHETANBHAI VADUKAR(HC01392), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/03/2026 16:45:21
                                                    Page 6 of 6