JESINGBHAI ARJANBHAI SANGADAversusDEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

     C/SCA/15063/2020                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15063 of 2020


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

==========================================
        Approved for Reporting              Yes    No
                                             --    No
==========================================
                JESINGBHAI ARJANBHAI SANGADA
                              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 04.06.2019 passed by the Labour
Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 618 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 04.06.1999 passed by Labour


                                     Page 1 of 10
     C/SCA/15063/2020                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




          Court, Godhra, in Reference (T) No.618 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 and pay full back wages and all consequential benefits to
          the petitioner until the date of his retirement and after the date of
          retirement, petitioner may be held entitled to all the retirement
          benefits including pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other
          retirement benefits treating petitioner's service continuous;

          (B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this
          petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct respondents to
          confer pensionary benefits to the petitioner since the petitioner has
          reached age of superannuation.

          (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



                                    Page 2 of 10
     C/SCA/15063/2020                            JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




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
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.


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

                                 Page 3 of 10
     C/SCA/15063/2020                           JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




for the respondent has strongly opposed and objected present
petition and submitted that the petitioner workman has not proved
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

                                 Page 4 of 10
     C/SCA/15063/2020                                JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




Malabhai Pagi, Special civil Application No.2205 of 2023 which is of
bhadar canal sub division, lunawada i.e Very respondent, in case of
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


                                   Page 5 of 10
   C/SCA/15063/2020                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




twelve weeks’ time from the date of receipt of copy of this order."


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


                                  Page 6 of 10
   C/SCA/15063/2020                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




          Court which was in terms modified.”

          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.




                                   Page 7 of 10
   C/SCA/15063/2020                               JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




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


                                 Page 8 of 10
   C/SCA/15063/2020                             JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




        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.

        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


                               Page 9 of 10
       C/SCA/15063/2020                                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




 the present case thus looking to 18 years of service from May 1978 to
 March, 1996, the labour court erred in granting compensation.


 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
 of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 389 of 2024, present
 petition is hereby allowed. The impugned award dated 04.06.2019
 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 618 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 04/02/2026 17:30:13




                                                         Page 10 of 10