SHRAMYOGI LATE GORDHANBHAI SAMATBHAI VAGHELAS HEIR SON RAJUBHAI GORDHANBHAI VAGHELAversusDEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SHETRUNJI JAMNA KANTHA CANAL SUB-DIVISION

     C/SCA/13222/2025                                ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13222 of 2025
================================================================
    SHRAMYOGI LATE GORDHANBHAI SAMATBHAI VAGHELAS HEIR SON
                 RAJUBHAI GORDHANBHAI VAGHELA
                                Versus
  DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SHETRUNJI JAMNA KANTHA CANAL SUB-
                           DIVISION & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
JWALIT B SONEJI(7895) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
                           Date : 20/01/2026
                            ORAL ORDER

1.     Present petition is         led by the petitioner under
Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w
the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
challenging the order dated 29.8.2025 passed by the
Industrial Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) No.20 of
2021, whereby the Industrial Court has dismissed the
reference and imposed cost of Rs.25,000/- upon the
petitioner.

2.     The facts giving rise to present petition are that the
dispute was referred for adjudication under Section 10(1)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the Labour
Commissioner,           Gandhinagar,          vide        order         dated
28.05.2021, to decide whether the workman - Mr.
Rajubhai          Gordhanbhai      Vaghela      was          entitled          to
appointment as a Work-Charge Watchman.

2.1 The workman claimed compassionate appointment on


                                Page 1 of 5
   C/SCA/13222/2025                                        ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




the ground that his father, a work-charge Watchman,
expired while in service, and despite issuance of a
demand notice dated 11.12.2020, no appointment was
granted.

2.2 The employer opposed the claim contending that
compassionate appointment had already been granted to
the widow of the deceased employee in Class-IV service
by order dated 17.09.2004, and therefore no further
appointment could be claimed.

2.3 After a:ording opportunity to both parties and
considering           the   evidence         on      record,     the    Industrial
Tribunal rejected the reference                        led by workman vide
impugned award dated 29.08.2025 passed in Reference
(IT) No. 20 of 2021 with exemplary cost. Being aggrieved
by the said award, the petitioner has                          led the present
petition     under          Articles      14,        226   and    227       of       the
Constitution of India.

3. Heard Mr. Jwalit B. Soneji, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Roshni Patel, learned AGP for the
respondent No.1

4. Mr. Soneji, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the impugned award passed by the
Industrial Court is ex-facie illegal, unjust, unfair and
contrary to the provision of law. He has submitted that


                                       Page 2 of 5
   C/SCA/13222/2025                       ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




the award passed by the Industrial Court is against the
evidence on record and against the settled legal position.
He has submitted that the award is mechanical, non-
speaking and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed
and set aside.

4.1 Mr. Soneji, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the Industrial Court has committed error
in directing the petitioner to deposit a penalty of
Rs.25,000/- as there is no provision under the I.D. Act or
the Rules framed        thereunder which empowers the
Industrial Court to impose such a monetary penalty on a
workman merely for raising a reference.

4.2 Mr. Soneji, learned counsel for the petitioner urges
before the Court that the impugned order passed by the
Industrial Court may be quashed and set aside and
present petition may be allowed.

5. On the other hand, Ms. Patel, learned AGP for the
respondent No.1 has submitted that the impugned order
has been passed after due consideration of all relevant
facts, documents, and submissions made by the parties.
She has submitted that the Industrial Court has recorded
detailed     ndings of fact, which are based on appreciation
of evidence on record and do not call for any interference
by this Court.




                            Page 3 of 5
      C/SCA/13222/2025                                     ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




5.1 Ms. Patel, learned AGP for the respondent No.1 urges
before this Court that the present petition may not be
entertained and the same may be dismissed.

6.      I have perused the document and relevant material
placed on record. I have also gone through the record of
the petition vis a vis the impugned order passed by the
Industrial Court.

7.      Having considered the record and proceedings of
the Industrial Tribunal as well as the submissions
advanced by the learned advocates for the respective
parties, this Court is of the opinion that the Industrial
Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record
and has correctly applied the settled principles governing
compassionate             appointment.         It   is    well     settled       that
compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and
cannot be claimed as a mode of inheritance. In the
present         case,     it    is   an     undisputed           position        that
compassionate appointment had already been extended
to the widow of the deceased employee in accordance
with the prevailing Government policy and that she
continued in service till her retirement. Once such bene t
had already been granted to one dependent member of
the      family,         no    further     claim         for     compassionate
appointment could have been sustained.

8. This Court, therefore, does not                       nd any perversity,


                                     Page 4 of 5
      C/SCA/13222/2025                                                                ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned award
insofar as the rejection of the reference on merits is
concerned, warranting interference under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. However, so far as the imposition of exemplary costs of
Rs.25,000/- is concerned, this Court is of the considered
view that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
same appears to be excessive and not called for.
Moreover, no speci c reasons have been recorded by the
Industrial Tribunal to justify the imposition of exemplary
costs. Hence, so far as observation of imposition of cost of
Rs.25,000/- is concerned, the same is hereby quashed and
set aside.

10. So far as the merits of the petition are concerned, this
Court,          upon            due         consideration                     of       the         record            and
proceedings of the case,                                 nds that the                    ndings recorded
by the learned Industrial Tribunal are based on proper
appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law. No
perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is pointed out
which would warrant interference by this Court in
exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India. Hence, the petition is hereby
dismissed.

                                                                        (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI

 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
 Digitally signed by: SURESHKUMAR MOTIBHAI SOLANKI(HC00208), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 21/01/2026 17:12:30




                                                       Page 5 of 5