MANAGER , OSWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.versusOMPRAKASH SHYAMLAL JAYSWAL

   C/SCA/13672/2023                              JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13672 of 2023


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-

==========================================================

           Approved for Reporting               Yes          No
                                                             No
==========================================================
                   MANAGER , OSWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.
                               Versus
                  OMPRAKASH SHYAMLAL JAYSWAL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS HINA DESAI(1023) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS DIPMALA S DESAI(6596) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SWEETY SAMARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                            Date : 23/02/2026

                           ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Sweety Samara, learned
AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the
respondent No.2 and Ms. Dipmala S. Desai, learned counsel
waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1.

2. Present petition is !led by the petitioner under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions of
Industrial Disputes Act challenging the impugned award
dated 6.5.2023 in Reference T(LC) No. 24 of 2018 passed by


                                Page 1 of 7
  C/SCA/13672/2023                             JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




the Labour Court, Kalol, whereby the Labour Court has partly
allowed the reference in favour of the workman and granted
reinstatement with 50% of wages of his last drawn wages as
backwages.


3. Facts of the case are that the respondent workman was
working in the Furnace department of the petitioner. He was
getting Rs.432/- per day. He was not paid for his overtime
work. On 3.10.2017, his service came to be terminated by the
petitioner.

3.1 Being aggrieved with the said termination, the workman
raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court being
Reference T(LC) No.24 of 2018 and the Labour Court, vide
order dated 6.5.2023 partly allowed the said reference and
awarded aforementioned relief.

3.2 Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court,
the petitioner has preferred present petition.


4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

5. Ms. Hina Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, has
reiterated the facts as narrated in the memo of the petition
and submitted that the Labour Court has committed a grave
error in passing the impugned award. She has contended that
the   petitioner     never   terminated      the   services       of    the
respondent–workman and that, in fact, the respondent had
abandoned the service on his own. She has further submitted
that there were complaints against the respondent from co-



                               Page 2 of 7
  C/SCA/13672/2023                              JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




sta; members during the course of duty. It is also submitted
that a warning letter was issued to the respondent for
remaining unauthorizedly absent from 04.10.2017, and that
these material aspects have not been properly appreciated by
the Labour Court. She has, therefore, prayed that the present
petition be allowed and the impugned award passed by the
Labour Court be quashed and set aside.

6. On the other hand, Ms. Dipmala Desai, learned counsel for
the respondent–workman, and Ms. Samara, learned AGP, have
opposed the petition and submitted that the Labour Court has
not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment.

6.1 Ms. Dipmala Desai, learned counsel for the respondent–
workman, has submitted that respondent No.1 had issued a
notice     through   the   Union          on   04.10.2017         seeking
reinstatement; however, the petitioner failed to reinstate him.
She has further submitted that respondent No.1 had also
approached the Labour Commissioner, but the petitioner
neither remained present before the authority nor took any
steps to reinstate respondent No.1. It is, therefore, submitted
that the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.1
remained absent from duty and was not terminated is wholly
meritless.

6.2 Ms. Desai, learned counsel for the respondent workman
has further submitted that the cross-examination of the Senior
Executive (HR), produced at Exhibit 16, clearly establishes
that respondent No.1 had been working with the petitioner for
more than six years. It is also brought on record that attempts



                            Page 3 of 7
  C/SCA/13672/2023                                           JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




were made to resolve the dispute through conciliation
proceedings; however, the petitioner did not remain present.
She has submitted that whenever respondent No.1 attempted
to resume duty, the petitioner did not cooperate, and due to
the continuous non-cooperation on the part of the petitioner,
the respondent–workman could not rejoin service. She has
further     submitted           that    the     Labour       Court       has     rightly
appreciated the evidence on record and has recorded a
!nding      that     the        respondent            was   terminated         without
compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of
the Industrial Disputes Act.

6.3 It is further submitted that in exercise of powers under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court
cannot interfere with an award passed by the Tribunal by re-
appreciating the evidence already considered and examined
by it, unless the !ndings are shown to be perverse or based on
no evidence whatsoever. According to her, the impugned
award is in consonance with the settled principles of law and,
therefore, the present petition deserves to be rejected.


7. 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
aforementioned relief. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme        Court       in     the     case        of    Maharashtra           State



                                        Page 4 of 7
  C/SCA/13672/2023                              JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




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 sum compensation is awarded in favour of the workman
in lieu of reinstatement and all other consequential bene!ts.


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 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


                                 Page 5 of 7
  C/SCA/13672/2023                               JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




       service, we propose to give compensation in the following
       tabular form:

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




                                 Page 6 of 7
     C/SCA/13672/2023                                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




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 other relief, it would be just and
proper to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the
workman, which will serve the ends of justice.


11. In view of the above, present petition is partly allowed.
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 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. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                                             Sd/-
                                                                         (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 24/02/2026 18:08:55




                                                        Page 7 of 7