HASMUKHBHAI BALASHANKERBHAI JOSHIversusMEDICAL OFFICER

     C/SCA/11019/2022                              JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11019 of 2022


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
        Approved for Reporting             Yes   No
                                            ---  No
==========================================
             HASMUKHBHAI BALASHANKERBHAI JOSHI
                              Versus
                    MEDICAL OFFICER & ANR.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR MA PAREKH(1088) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                            Date : 02/02/2026

                             ORAL JUDGMENT


1.       Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned award
dated 20.01.2022 passed in Reference [L.C.B] Case No. 61 of 2024 by
the learned Presiding OfÏcer, Labour Court No.1, Bhavnagar
(hereinafter be referred to as “the Labour Court”) whereby the Labour
Court has party allowed the reference and directed the respondent to
pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back
wages, continuity of service and other service benefits as full and final
settlement.



                                  Page 1 of 5
     C/SCA/11019/2022                             JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026




2.       Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner – workman
was appointed as driver by the respondents on permanent post, after
following the process of recruitment Rules and Regulations and,
therefore, he was working since 14.07.1998 and he demanded his
legitimate requirements and benefits i.e. Muster-Card, Pay Slip and
Identity Card etc, on the contrary, the respondents paid less
remuneration, due to which, the workman was terminated with effect
from 31.08.2001 without any reason.


2.1      Against the said inaction on the part of the respondents, the
petitioner had filed I.D.R. Case No. 13 of 2024, wherein, no settlement
had arrived at between the parties and ultimately, the petitioner had
preferred aforesaid reference case before the Labour Court, which
came to be partly allowed and awarded compensation to the tune of
Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement, back wages, continuity of service
and other service benefits as full and final settlement.


3.       Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award, the
petitioner has preferred the present petition.


4.       Heard Mr. M. A. Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.H. S. Munshaw, leaned counsel for the respondents at length.
Perused the material available on record.


5.       Mr.Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the
same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has further
submitted that the Labour Court has committed an error in partly
allowing the reference. He has submitted that the Labour Court has
not properly appreciated the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

                                  Page 2 of 5
     C/SCA/11019/2022                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026




as well as this Court and committed an error in awarding lump sum
compensation at Rs.50,000/-. He has also submitted that the action of
the respondents in terminating the service of the petitioner is against
the provisions of Section 25(F), (G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes
Act (for short “the Act”) and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to
reinstate with continuity of service. He has submitted that the Labour
Court ought to have passed the impugned award of reinstatement
along with the back wages instead of awarding lump sum amount of
Rs.50,000/-. He has submitted that the amount of compensation
awarded by the Labour Court was not paid by the respondents. He
has submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed and the
impugned award deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6.       Mr.Munshaw, learned counsel for the respondents has objected
the petition and submitted that the Labour Court has not committed
any      error     while   awarding      Rs.50,000/-   towards       lump      sum
compensation. He           has submitted that there was no documentary
evidence on record, while deciding the Reference, the Labour Court
has come to the conclusion that there was breach of Sections 25(F),
25(g) and 25(H) of the Act. He has submitted that the Labour Court
has partly allowed the Reference by awarding lump sum amount of
compensation and, therefore, the same is just and proper and no
interference is required to be called for.


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, on the other hand, the Labour Court has
awarded Rs.50,000/- which is erroneous. In view of the decision of the


                                      Page 3 of 5
     C/SCA/11019/2022                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026




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, this Court is of the opinion that the purpose
would be served if lump sum amount of Rs.3,00,000/- awarded by the
Labour Court is required to be 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 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 effect 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:



                                    Page 4 of 5
        C/SCA/11019/2022                                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026




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




  9.          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 back wages and reinstatement in service as prayed for,
  it would be just and proper to pay lump sum compensation of
  Rs.2,50,000/- to the workman, which will serve the ends of justice.

  10.         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 modified accordingly. An
  amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as lump sum compensation and amount of
  Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Labour Court shall be paid to the
  workman by the employer after proper verification 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. There shall be no order as to
  costs.

                                                                        (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
  V.R. PANCHAL

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 03/02/2026 16:56:31




                                                           Page 5 of 5