GALABHAI MANIYABHAI BARIYAversusDEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

     C/SCA/15059/2020                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15059 of 2020


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

==========================================
        Approved for Reporting              Yes    No
                                             --    No
==========================================
                 GALABHAI MANIYABHAI BARIYA
                              Versus
              DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SWEETY SAMARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                              Date : 29/01/2026

                               ORAL JUDGMENT


1.       Rule returnable forthwith.         Present petition is filed by the
employee under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
against the impugned award dated 03.06.2019 passed by the Labour
Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 615 of 1999 with below mentioned
relief/s:-

          “(A) A writ of certiorari and/or a writ in the nature of Certiorari and /
          or any other appropriate writ, order of direction be issued to quash
          and set aside impugned award dated 03.06.2019 passed by Labour


                                     Page 1 of 10
     C/SCA/15059/2020                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




          Court, Godhra, in Reference (T) No.615 of 1999 qua not allowing the
          Reference of the petitioner in full and further may be pleased to
          direct the respondents to reinstate petitioner in service with
          continuity of service and pay full back wages and all consequential
          benefits to the petitioner;
          (B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this
          petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct respondents to
          reinstate the petitioner in service.
          (C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon’ble Court
          deemed fit, in the interest of justice, may kindly be granted."

2.       Heard Dipak R. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms.
Sweety Samara, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent.


3.       Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that in case of the similarly situated workmen, who have been
terminated by the respondent employer, serving in the same
irrigation        department,      this     Court     vide      order       dated
14.2.2020/20.1.2020 allowed Special Civil Application No. 22362 of
2019 and allied petitions and granted benefits to the concerned
workmen. It is submitted that in the similar cases of very department
at very canal division in Special civil Application No.2205 of 2023, this
court has while modifying award of lumpsum compensation granted
relief of considering the service of the employee as continuous until
he reached age of superannuation. Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that though the Labour Court has observed
that the respondent has not produced any documents however,
Labour Court has not considered this fact and therefore, while passing
the impugned award the Labour Court has committed serious error
and therefore, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is
erroneous, unjust, illegal. Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the Labour Court has observed that all the issues
are proved by the petitioner by material and cogent evidence

                                    Page 2 of 10
     C/SCA/15059/2020                            JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




however, merely on conjectures and surmises that the petitioner
reached to the age of superannuation or nearer to the superannuation
age, the Labour Court has awarded lumpsum compensation to the
tune of Rs.1,90,000/- which is bad in law and not in consonance with
the settled legal principle. Mr. Dave has submitted that during the
pendency of this petition, the petitioner has reached superannuation
age and therefore necessary directions may be issued by molding
reliefs as has been done in case of similarly situated employees.


3.1      Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his
submissions, relied upon and referred to the decisions of the
coordinate bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.22362 of
2019 and allied petitions, Special Civil Application No. 4168 of 2022
with Special Civil Application No.4198 of 2022 and the order passed
by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal
No.389 of 2024 and urges that the impugned award passed by the
Labour Court be modified.


3.2 Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the order passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of the
concerned workman is further carried in Appeal by the State before
the Division Bench by way of preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. 389
of 2024 and the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 7.8.2024
confirmed the said order and rejected the Letters Patent Appeal No.
389 of 2024 filed by the State and therefore, similar order may be
passed in present petition also.


4.       Per contra, Ms. Samara, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for the respondent has strongly opposed and objected present
petition and submitted that the petitioner workman has not proved

                                 Page 3 of 10
     C/SCA/15059/2020                           JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




that he has worked in the said Canal and there was no documentary
evidence produced by the petitioner and urged that the award being
just and proper may not be interfered with.


5.       I have considered the material and relevant documents placed
on record. I have also gone through the record of the petition as well
as the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and the relevant
papers appended to the petition.


6.       It appears that the issue involved in present petition has
already been decided by two different coordinate benches of this
Court wherein services of similarly situated workmen, who were
working in the same ofÏce and at the same site came to be
terminated and the workmen have challenged the said order of
termination before the Labour Court and Labour Court has awarded
lumpsum compensation by rejecting the order of reinstatement. The
said order was challenged by the concerned workmen before this
Court by way of preferring Special Civil Application No.22362 of 2019
and allied petition, whereby after hearing the parties, the coordinate
bench of this Court has passed an order dated 14.2.2020/20.1.2020
and allowed the group of petitions, keeping in mind the observations
made in paragraph Nos. 9, 10 and 11.


7.       The said petition came to be allowed with the direction to the
respondent to consider the case of all the concerned workmen for
retirement benefits, who have attained the age of superannuation
instead of granting reinstatement, till the date of superannuation with
continuity of service. It is not in dispute that in case of Jawanbhai
Malabhai Pagi, Special civil Application No.2205 of 2023 which is of
bhadar canal sub division, lunawada i.e Very respondent, in case of

                                 Page 4 of 10
   C/SCA/15059/2020                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




similarly situated employee, this court has modified award of
compensation by allowing the petition of an employee and directed to
treat his service as continuous till date of retirement and to pay all
retirement benefits which is confirmed in LPA No. 855 of 2025.


8. Similarly situated workman has filed present petition and therefore,
similar order is required to be passed in the facts of the present
petition also.


9. At this stage, it appropriate to take into account the similar
observation made by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Special
Civil Application No. 4168 of 2022 and Special Civil Application No.
4189 of 2022 vide judgment dated 24.6.2022 which reads as under:-

        "10. Accordingly, as held by this Court in the judgement of
        Chhatrasing Marutising Bariya vs. Dy. Executive Engineer & Ors.,
        the petitions are allowed. Under the circumstances, the impugned
        award passed by the Labour Court is erroneous to the extent of
        granting compensation. The respondents are directed to reinstate
        the workmen in service with continuity of service. However, it is
        clarified that they will not be entitled to any backwages as they
        have given up their claims. After their reinstatement, it will be open
        for the petitioners – workmen to file a representation claiming the
        benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.The order
        reinstating the petitioner workmen shall be passed within a period
        of three months from the date of receipt of this order.The amount of
        compensation, if already paid to the workmen, the same shall be
        adjusted while fixing their pay.

        11. As far as petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 4189 of 2022
        is concerned, he has attained the age of superannuation. The Court
        accedes to the request of quashing and setting aside the order of
        lump-sum compensation and instead grant the reinstatement till the
        date of superannuation with continuity of service. The back wages
        has been forgone by the employee with the grant of continuity to
        him who has attained the age of superannuation. He shall be paid
        consequentially the retirement benefits on the strength of modified
        award in not later than twelve weeks’ time from the date of receipt
        of copy of this order."


                                  Page 5 of 10
   C/SCA/15059/2020                                JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




10.    It is also required to be noted herein that the Hon'ble Division
Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 389 of 2024 has confirmed the
order passed by the learned Single Judge and observed that:-

        “10. On a perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court, we find
        that the Labour Court had directed the employer to produce muster-
        roll to satisfy as to whether from which year, the workman has
        completed 240 days. Despite the aforesaid direction, the employer
        of the respondent-workman did not produce the same. It is asserted
        by the workman that he was engaged from 1994 to 1997 however,
        his service was terminated from 03.10.1997. The learned Single
        Judge after placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court
        in the case of R.M. Yellatti (supra), has held that the termination
        was not in violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Act, no
        muster roll was produced by the employer, though directed by the
        Labour Court.

        11. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order,
        more particularly in paragraph No.6 has held thus : -

        “6. Apart from setting out the number of days that the respondent
        had worked in the years 1994 to 1997 as referred to herein above,
        perusal of the award of the Labour Court would indicate that in one
        of the references which was heard together with the present
        reference, at mark 20/1, the employer was called upon to produce
        the muster roll to satisfy the Labour Court as to whether in each
        year of service, the workman had completed 240 days. At mark
        17/1, the deposition of the employer’s witness Ravindran
        Karunakaran Nair was also considered. The Labour Court
        considering the decision of the Supreme Court in case of R.M.Yellatti
        v. Assi. Executive Engineer reported in 2006 SSC (L&S) 1 held that
        adverse inference has to be drawn in the event of employer having
        failed to produce oral as well as documentary evidence on record.
        Even otherwise, this Court had an occasion to deal with the awards
        of a similar nature where the Labour Court fell short of awarding
        reinstatement and awarded compensation. The petitions were filed
        by the State challenging the award of reinstatement with 10% back-
        wages and those of some workmen who are already awarded
        compensation. In the oral order dated 20.01.2020, the Court
        confirmed the orders of reinstatement, however, set aside the order
        of granting 10% back-wages. In other words, the award of
        reinstatement without back- wages was the award of the Labour
        Court which was in terms modified.”



                                 Page 6 of 10
   C/SCA/15059/2020                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




          12. We are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by
          the learned Single Judge. We have also noticed that the
          Department, in which the respondent-workman was working was
          never closed down and there were other employees, who were
          working along with the present workman. It is also not in dispute
          that no seniority list has been produced by the appellant before the
          Labour Court, and hence, the Labour Court is justified in holding the
          termination in violation of Section 25G and H of the I.D. Act."

11.      Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has rejected the Letters
Patent Appeal filed by the State and confirmedthe order passed by
the learned Single Judge and observed paragraph No. 13 as under:-

          "13. Thus we do not find any reason for interfering the judgment
          and order passed by the learned Single Judge.Hence, the present
          appeal fails. The same is hereby rejected accordingly."

12.      Therefore, the orders passed by the two different coordinate
benches of this Court are now confirmed by the Hon'ble Division
Bench and therefore, this Court has no any other alternate but to pass
the similar order in view of the order passed by the two different
coordinate bench of this Court and confirmed by Division Bench of this
Court.


13.      It is required to be noted herein that once the coordinate bench
of this Court has considered the submissions and passed the order
which is upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench, for considering the
judicial discipline and propriety, this Court has no any alternate but to
pass the similar order as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, time
and again that in similar identical facts, if one coordinate bench has
taken the view then the another coordinate bench has to follow the
same.


14. It is also appropriate to take into account that in the another


                                   Page 7 of 10
   C/SCA/15059/2020                                JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




group of Letters Patent Appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 622 of
2024 the court has confirmed the order of learned Single Judge in the
similarly situated workman on the same line, where the Labour Court
has awarded lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and that
was interfered by coordinate bench of this Court, which is upheld by
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
622 of 2024. Relevantparagraph No. 3 read as under:-

“3. The Division Bench vide order dated 19.03.2024 passed in Letters
Patent Appeal No.190 of 2024, has held in paragraphs, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and
10 as under:

“ 4. It is further noted by the learned Single Judge that the only documents,
that were produced by the employer, were for the period from January 2007
to December 2009. The contention on behalf of the State was that on
account of delay of 2 years in raising the dispute,when the work at the
Canal had been outsourced, reinstatement was not possible, that too after a
lapse of 20 years from the date of termination of the services of the
petitioner, as admitted to the petitioner.

5. These findings returned by the learned Single Judge are sought to be
assailed by Ms. Hetal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader,
appearing for the State-appellant, with the assertions in the written
statement placed before us. It is sought to be submitted that the petitioner
was engaged in a project which has come to an end and he was never
engaged by the Bhadar Canal Sub-Division.

6. This statement made in the written statement is found to be wrong for
the simple reason that on the asking of the Labour Court, the employer had
produced the attendance records of only last three years, i.e. for the period
from January 2007 to December 2009. It was not the case of the appellant-
employer that the petitioner was never engaged in the department. The
complete record establishing the period of working of the petitioner even in
the Project, wherein he was allegedly engaged by the respondent as per the
contentions in the written statement, had not been produced by the
employer.

7. The best evidence was in the custody of the appellant employer and for
not producing the entire record including the attendance-sheet to establish
the actual period of working of the petitioner, adverse inference was
required to be drawn by the Labour Court.




                                 Page 8 of 10
   C/SCA/15059/2020                                JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




8. It is an admitted fact of the matter that apart from the attendance-sheet
of three years, no oral or documentary evidence was placed by the
appellant department before the Labour Court and the best evidence was
withheld in spite of the specific directions issued by the Labour Court.

9. We are, therefore, of the view that the findings returned by the learned
Single Judge that the compensation in lieu of reinstatement will be
detrimental to the petitioner, who has worked over a period of 20 years and
who has been illegally restrained from working at the instance of the
employer. As the respondent department/ appellant herein has failed to
establish the period of working of the petitioner, who has admittedly been
engaged in the department since 1983 till July 2011, as categorically stated
by the workman, we are of the considered view that for violation of the
Section 25-F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, the reinstatement
ought to have been followed, as directed by the learned Single Judge. 10.
For the aforesaid, no case is made out for interference. The appeal is,
therefore, DISMISSED, affirming the order passed by the learned Single
Judge. Pending Civil Application also stands DISPOSED OF.”


15.    In the present case labour court has rightly considered evidence
on record and relying upon Judgment of Hon’ble supreme court in
case of R.M. Yellatti v. Assi. Executive Engineer (2006 SSC (L&S) 1)
held that the employee has rendered continuous service as per
section 25B of ID Act. The labour court, Godhra in reference (T)
no.148 of 2013 has passed identically worded award and as only
compensation was granted, the same was modified in Special civil
Application No.2205 of 2023 and confirmed in LPA No. 855 of 2025. In
the present case thus looking to 18 years of service from May 1978 to
March, 1996, the labour court erred in granting compensation. Since,
the petitioner has now reached superannuation age, similar relief is
required to be given to the petitioner.


16.    In view of the above observations and keeping in mind the
observations made by the two different Coordinate Benches of this
Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 22362 of 2019 and 4168 of
2022 with 4189 of 2022 and confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench


                                 Page 9 of 10
      C/SCA/15059/2020                                                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




 of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 389 of 2024, present
 petition is hereby allowed. The impugned award dated 03.06.2019
 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 615 of 1999
 is hereby modified and the respondent is hereby directed to consider
 the service of the petitioner, as continuous on the same line and treat
 the petitioner as workman in service till he reached the age of
 superannuation and pay all the retiral consequential benefits, as
 directed by two co-ordinate bench of this Court and upheld by the
 Hon'ble Division Bench.


 17. All the consequential reliefs and retiral benefits, as granted by the
 two different Coordinate Benches of this Court in Special Civil
 Application Nos. 22362 of 2019 and 4168 of 2022 with 4189 of 2022
 and confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Letters
 Patent Appeal No. 389 of 2024, shall be paid to the present petitioner
 workman within period of three months from the date of receipt of
 copy of writ of this order.


 18. Accordingly the petition stands disposed of. Rule made absolute
 to the above extent. Direct service is permitted.

                                                                      (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 11:19:35




                                                        Page 10 of 10