AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICE THROUGH TRANSPORT MANAGERversusMANSURI FIROZABANU RIZWAN WD/O MANSURI RIZWAN FAKIRMOHMMED

     C/SCA/13453/2022                              JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13453 of 2022
                                   With
               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21976 of 2023

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

             Approved for Reporting               Yes          No

==========================================================
         AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICE THROUGH
                     TRANSPORT MANAGER & ANR.
                               Versus
          MANSURI FIROZABANU RIZWAN WD/O MANSURI RIZWAN
                          FAKIRMOHMMED
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR PARESH J BRAHMBHATT(9788) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                              Date : 02/03/2026

                                JUDGMENT


1.       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:

         “(A) Be pleased to allow the Special Civil Application;

         (B) Be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the
         nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
         direction, for quashing and setting the award dated 24.11.2021
         delivered by the learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad partly
         allowing Reference (LCA) No.625 of 2004;

         (C)     Pending admission hearing and ,nal disposal of the


                                  Page 1 of 7
     C/SCA/13453/2022                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




         Special Civil Application, be pleased to stay the execution,
         implementation and operation of the award dated 24.11.2021
         delivered by the learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad partly
         allowing Reference (LCA) No.625 of 2004;

         (D) Be pleased to pass such other and further relief/s which
         may be deemed ,t just and proper.”


2.       Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
respondent was employed with the petitioner in the Stores
Department as a daily wage labourer from 03.02.1998 on
temporary and ad hoc daily wage basis. That, the respondent
was not o-ered any permanent and sanctioned post. That, from
23.04.2002, the respondent stopped receiving work from the
petitioner        due   to   non-availability    of     work      and      funds.
Consequently, the respondent approached the Labour Court,
Ahmedabad by way of             ling Reference (LCA) No.625 of 2004
praying for reinstatement with continuity and backwages on the
ground that he was not o-ered work from 23.4.2002. That, the
respondent had passed away on 05.12.2018. That, the Labour
Court vide award dated 24.11.2021 had partly allowed the
reference and directed the petitioners to pay lump sum
compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-              in lieu of reinstatement and
backwages to the widow of the respondent.


3.       Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned award
dated 24.11.2021 passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has
preferred the present petition.


4.       Heard Mr. HS Munshaw, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mr. Paresh J Brahmbhatt, learned counsel for                               the
respondent. Perused the material available on record.


                                   Page 2 of 7
     C/SCA/13453/2022                         JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




5.       Learned counsel Mr. Munshaw 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, is
required to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the
Labour Court has not considered the fact that the respondent
was o-ered work upto 2002 but due to administrative and
 nancial reasons, it was not possible to continue daily wager and
hence, he was not o-ered work and therefore, it cannot be
considered as retrenchment or termination. He has submitted
that the Labour Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the
respondent was employed purely on temporary and ad hoc basis
and was not holding any permanent and sanctioned post and,
therefore, had no right to continue in employment of the
petitioner irrespective of availability of work and funds. Over and
above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned
counsel Mr. Munshaw has urged that the impugned award
passed by the Labour Court is required to be quashed and set
aside and the present petition is required to be allowed.


6.       As against that, learned counsel Mr. Brahmbhatt, 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

                               Page 3 of 7
     C/SCA/13453/2022                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




required to be dismissed and no interference is required to be
called for while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.

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. 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 where it has been held that in all the case where the
termination is found illegal, the order of reinstatement cannot be
passed automatically and 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 the purpose would be served if lump sum amount of
Rs.1,20,000/- awarded by the Labour Court 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


                                    Page 4 of 7
     C/SCA/13453/2022                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




         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 e8ect 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:

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


                                       Page 5 of 7
   C/SCA/13453/2022                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




       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 di8erent 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 back wages and reinstatement in service
as prayed for, it would be just and proper to pay lump sum
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- as full and nal settlement to the
legal heirs of the respondent, which will serve the ends of justice.


11.    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.3,00,000/-    as    lump       sum
compensation shall be paid to the legal heir of the workman by
the employer after proper veri cation 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.1,20,000/- 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 is not paid then the lump sum amount which is


                                    Page 6 of 7
       C/SCA/13453/2022                                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




   awarded by this Court shall be paid to the workman. There shall
   be no order as to costs.



   12.      In view of the order passed in Special Civil Application No.
   13453 of 2022, the cross petition of the workman being Special
   Civil Application No. 21976 of 2023 stands disposed of.




                                                                 (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
   ANUSRI


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 05/03/2026 16:45:20




                                                  Page 7 of 7