AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICEversusJAYANTIBHAI MERUBHAI PATEL

     C/SCA/16146/2020                              JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16146 of 2020

                                   With
               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16148 of 2020

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

             Approved for Reporting               Yes          No

================================================================
                AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICE
                                Versus
                 HARESHKUMAR SHANKARLAL TRIVEDI & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MJ MEHTA(5797) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR SAURABH J MEHTA(2170) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SWEETY SAMARA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 2 in SCA/16146/2020
MS AGNEYA MANKAD, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 2 in SCA/16148/2020
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                              Date : 05/03/2026

                            COMMON JUDGMENT


1.       In view of the fact that an identical issue is involved in both the
petitions, the petitions are heard analogously and are being disposed
of by this common judgment.

2.       Present petitions are led by the petitioner Corporation under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as “the
Act”) challenging the impugned awards dated 18.6.2019 passed by


                                   Page 1 of 7
     C/SCA/16146/2020                               JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026




the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.491 of 2011 and
Reference (LCA) No. 490 of 2011 respectively, whereby the Labour
Court has partly allowed the reference and granted reinstatement
with continuity of service without backwages to both the respondents.

3.       Brief facts giving rise to the present petitions are as under :
3.1      That, the respondent-workmen were working as driver as daily
wager o6ering services badli worker as driver, requiring them to
remain present and report to the duties and given work as per the
seniority. That, the tenure was purely depending on the exigency and
of availability of work, on the essential services of the transportation
in the city of Ahmedabad, rather even from the records, the
respondent-workmen did not remain present and reported for the
duties. That, the respondent-workmen were engaged in the year 1997
and rendered services as a daily-wage driver as under :

      Year         No. of days worked by        No. of days worked by
               Hareshkumar Shankarlal Trivedi Jayantibhai Merubhai Patel

      1997                  47½                             76
      1998                  262                             98
      1999                  276                             151
      2000                  243                             208
      2001                  268                             90
      2002                   16                              -



3.2      That in the year 2002, the petitioner institution was under
massive crunch and nancial crisis and there was no work available
and even the regular employees appointed after due process of law
could not be paid salary, despite remaining idle. That, under the
circumstance, persons working as badli workers/daily wagers were
discharged/relieved, in view of non-availability of work and against
the actions of not giving work lead to ling of several litigation. That,



                                   Page 2 of 7
     C/SCA/16146/2020                               JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026




upon partial availability of work, e6orts were made to call back and
given fresh appointment, during which, the respondent-workmen,
worked only intermittently as under :


       Year         No. of days worked by        No. of days worked by
                Hareshkumar Shankarlal Trivedi Jayantibhai Merubhai Patel

       2006                  44                             15
       2007                  99                             20
       2008                  119                             -
       2009                  39                              -
       2010                  27                              -


3.3      That, the respondent-workmen remained continuously absent
from 13.02.2007 onwards, for which requests were made orally and
also speci c repeated notices were issued for requisition, however,
the respondent-workmen did not choose to respond or even resume
work, despite of receiving the acknowledgment to resume duties.
That, the authority was further compelled to engage services from the
retired drivers of the institution. Furthermore, the respondent-
workmen had not even completed 240 days of service and had not
reported for work, for which necessary actions were taken on
10.06.2010. That, being aggrieved and dissatis ed against the action,
the respondent-workmen raised industrial dispute by way of                   ling
reference as aforesaid, wherein, the Labour Court partly allowed the
reference and granted reinstatement with continuity of service
without backwages to both the respondents vide its awards dated
18.6.2019

4.       Being aggrieved by the above awards passed by the Labour
Court, the petitioner has preferred present petitions.


5.       Heard Mr. Deep D. Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the


                                    Page 3 of 7
     C/SCA/16146/2020                            JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026




petitioner, Mr. Saurabh Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-workmen and learned AGPs Ms. Sweety Samara and Ms.
Agneya Mankad, appearing for the respondent-State Authority.


6.       Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the facts
narrated in the memo of petition and submitted that the judgment
and award passed by the Labour Court are bad in law and de hors the
provisions of law. He submitted that both the respondents were not at
all employed as regular and permanent drivers in establishment of
the Corporation. He has submitted that both the respondents were
o6ered work as daily wage drivers between 1996 to 2002 depending
upon the availability of work and funds and therefore, had no right of
continuity in service. He has submitted that labour Court has erred in
ordering for reinstatement though there was a case of abandonment
of service and there was no breach of the provisions of Section 25F, G
and H of the I.D. Act. Over-and-above, the grounds enumerated in the
memo of petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is
illegal, unjust and improper and the same deserves to be quashed
and set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.


7.       On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has
objected the petition and submitted that the Labour Court has not
committed any error in passing the impugned awards. He has
submitted that the impugned awards passed by the Labour Court are
in consonance with the provisions of law. He has submitted that the
impugned awards are passed by the Labour Court after considering
the facts of the case and the settled legal principles.

8.       Considering the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel


                                 Page 4 of 7
     C/SCA/16146/2020                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026




for the petitioner and respondents, the impugned judgment and
award passed by the Labour Court, and considering the fact that both
the respondents had rendered 14/11 years services as 'driver' with
the petitioner Corporation and also considering the fact that this Court
in case of similarly situated employees has granted lumpsum
compensation vide order dated 10.12.2025 passed in Special Civil
Application No. 6931 of 2020 with Special Civil Application No. 6933 of
2020, it is appropriate to grant lump sum compensation in favour of
both the respondents. 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 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 if
lump sum compensation in favour of both the respondents is
awarded, the interest of justice would be subserved.

9.       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


                                     Page 5 of 7
   C/SCA/16146/2020                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026




           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 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


10.       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



                                       Page 6 of 7
        C/SCA/16146/2020                                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026




             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.”


11.         Now, considering the materials placed on record and the
peculiar facts of the case as well as the tenure of services of both the
respondents, it would be just and proper to pay lump sum
compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to EACH of the respondent, which will
serve the ends of justice.


12.         In view of the above, both the petitions are partly allowed. The
impugned awards dated 18.6.2019 passed by the Labour Court,
Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 491 of 2011 and Reference (LCA)
No. 490 of 2011 respectively are modi ed accordingly. An amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- as lump sum compensation shall be paid to EACH OF
the respondent by the employer, after proper veri cation of the
identity and bank details through RTGS/NEFT, 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 in both the petitions. There shall be
no order as to costs.


                                                                    (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 06/03/2026 16:47:49

                                                     Page 7 of 7