Created byFuzzy Cloud

High Court of Gujarat

STATE OF GUJARATversusJAYESHBHAI LALLUBHAI VARLI

Disposal
39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH

Holding

The petition is dismissed on the ground that the quantum of the dispute is too small for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227.

Summary

The State of Gujarat filed a Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging an award dated 31 August 2018 made by the Controlling Authority, Valsad, under the Payment of Wages Act. The award required the State to pay the respondent watchman Rs.20,354.40, which was the amount the respondent claimed for leave encashment, unpaid days, and weekly holidays. The petitioners argued various grounds for setting aside the award, but the court noted that the sum involved was very small. Relying solely on the modest quantum, the High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction and dismissed the petition without addressing the merits. The court directed the State to comply with the award and release the amount to the respondent within eight weeks, with no order as to costs.

Issues considered

  • Whether the High Court should entertain a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution when the amount in dispute is nominal (Rs.20,354.40).
  • Whether the award of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Wages Act can be set aside on the grounds raised by the petitioners.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Payment of Wages ActLeave encashmentSmall cause jurisdictionArticle 226Article 227Award dismissalSpecial Civil Application

Judgment

     C/SCA/14322/2020                                ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14322 of 2020

================================================================
                            STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                                     Versus
                        JAYESHBHAI LALLUBHAI VARLI & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS AGNEYA MANKAD, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                                 Date : 29/01/2026

                                  ORAL ORDER


1.     Present petition is filed by the petitioners – State Authorities
under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India against the
Judgment and Award dated 31.08.2018 passed by the Controlling
Authority, Valsad under Payment of Wages Act in Pagar Dhara
Application No. 18 of 2010, whereby, the learned Controlling Authority
has awarded a sum of Rs.20,354.40ps. to the respondent herein in
lieu of the prayers sought by the respondent in the original Pagar
Dhara Application.


2.     Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
respondent herein was a permanent employee of the petitioner
authorities since 2004 and was serving as a watchman. That, the
respondent had preferred Pagar Dhara Application No. 18 of 2010
before the learned Controlling Authority under the Payment of Wages
Act at Valsad seeking three prayers viz., (a) To release leave
encashment occurred in his service amounting to of Rs. 8,326.60/- for


                                     Page 1 of 3
     C/SCA/14322/2020                                ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026




the period of 2007 to 2009. (b) To release payment of the number of
the days he had worked for in the month of February, 2010 to
October, 2010 stating that the Authority herein had calculated lesser
number of days then what he had worked for and had paid him
accordingly an amount of Rs. 20,354.40/-. (c) To release payment for
the weekly holidays for a period of January 2009 to October 2010
amounting to Rs. 14,803.20/-. That, after hearing both the parties the
learned Authority partly allowed the application of the respondent
herein vide award dated 31.08.2018 and directed the petitioner
authorities to pay a sum of Rs. 20354.40/- to the respondent.


3.     Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award dated
31.08.2018 passed by the Controlling Authority, Valsad in Pagar
Dhara Application No. 18 of 2010, the petitioners have preferred the
present petition.


4.     Heard Ms. Agneya Mankad, learned Assistant Government
Pleader, appearing for the petitioners.


5.     Though various grounds have been raised in the memo of
petition, the fact remains that the total amount involved in the
petition is only Rs.20,354.40ps., which is a very small amount.
Considering the smallness of amount, this Court deems it fit not to
exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the matter only
on the ground of smallness of amount with a further clarification that
this may not be considered as precedent in other matters, the petition
is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.




                                Page 2 of 3
          C/SCA/14322/2020                                                        ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026




  6.        The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount as awarded by
  the Controlling Authority and the same shall be disbursed in favour of
  the respondent-employee, after verifying his bank details and after
  following due procedure, through RTGS/NEFT, within a period of eight
  weeks from the date of receipt of order of this Court.



                                                                     (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 29/01/2026 17:12:40

                                                      Page 3 of 3


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Payment of Wages Act"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.