STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH RANGE FOREST OFFICERversusMANGALBHAI BHAVANBHAI SOLANKI

     C/SCA/17753/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17753 of 2025


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

             Approved for Reporting               Yes          No

==========================================================
         STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH RANGE FOREST OFFICER
                              Versus
                  MANGALBHAI BHAVANBHAI SOLANKI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR BHAVESH J PATEL(6801) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                              Date : 02/03/2026

                                JUDGMENT


1.       RULE. Ms. Roshni Patel, learned AGP waives service of
notice of rule on behalf of the petitioner.


2.       Present petition is led by the petitioner under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking following reliefs:

         “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow the
         present petition;

         (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside
         the order passed in Reference (L.C.N.) No. 28 OF 2019 dated
         30.01.2024;



                                  Page 1 of 6
     C/SCA/17753/2025                             JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




         (C) Pending the hearing your lordship be pleased to stay the
         order passed in Reference (L.C.N.) No. 28 OF 2019 dated
         30.01.2024;

         (D) Be please to pass any further orders.”


3.       Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
respondent was working as a Rojamdar with the petitioner since
1998. The workman was orally terminated by the petitioner on
01.10.2016. That, consequently, the respondent raised an
industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Nadiad being
Reference (LCN) No. 28 of 2019 whereby, the Labour Court vide
order dated 30.01.2024 partly allowed the reference of the
respondent and directed the petitioner to reinstate the
respondent to his original post.


4.       Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned order
dated 30.01.2024 passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has
preferred the present petition.


5.       Heard Ms. Roshni Patel, learned AGP for the petitioner and
Mr. Bhavesh Patel, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused
the materials available on record.


6.       Learned AGP Ms. Patel has submitted that the impugned
judgment and order passed by the Labour Court is illegal, unjust,
arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on
record and the provisions of the Act and therefore, is required to
be quashed and set aside. She has submitted that the Labour
Court has erred in observing that the respondent was in
continuous service with the petitioner, as per Section 25(B) of


                                  Page 2 of 6
     C/SCA/17753/2025                         JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




the ID Act, therefore, there was no breach of section 25(F) of the
aforesaid Act, committed by the petitioner. She has submitted
that the Labour Court has not considered the fact that there was
no evidence led by the respondent to prove his claim before the
Labour Court. She has submitted that the Labour Court has not
considered the fact that the respondent was appointed on
contractual basis for seasonal work and thus, he will not be
entitled for regular bene ts which are available to a regular
government employee. She has submitted that the Labour Court
has not considered the fact that since the respondent was a daily
wager and was paid as per the day’s work, therefore, there was
no record of any attendance card, pay slip, leave encashment
and he was not entitled for other consequential bene ts and no
notice was required to be given.


7.       As against that, learned counsel Mr. Patel, appearing for
the respondent-workman, has opposed the present petition and
submitted that there is no any in rmity or any illegality in the
impugned judgment and order passed by the Labour Court and
therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the
present petition. He has submitted that the impugned judgment
and order passed by the Labour Court is in consonance with the
settled principles of law and is passed after following due
procedure and therefore, the same is required to be con rmed
and the present petition is required to be dismissed and no
interference is required to be called for while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.


8.       Considering the submissions canvassed by learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties and the impugned order

                               Page 3 of 6
     C/SCA/17753/2025                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




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. 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 where it has been held that in all the case where the
termination is found illegal, the order of reinstatement cannot be
passed automatically and 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 the purpose would be served if lump sum
compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded.


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 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



                                      Page 4 of 6
  C/SCA/17753/2025                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




      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:

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


                                    Page 5 of 6
     C/SCA/17753/2025                                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




          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 this case and considering the fact that the
respondent had worked for more than 15 years however, it
appears that there was a delay of 3 years in preferring the
reference, this Court is of the opinion that instead of granting
any back wages and reinstatement in service as prayed for, it
would be just and proper to pay lump sum compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- as full and                       nal settlement to the respondent,
which will serve the ends of justice.


12.       With the aforesaid conclusion, the petition stands allowed
in part. The impugned order passed by the Labour Court is
hereby quashed and set aside and the award is modi ed
accordingly.            An      amount          of     Rs.5,00,000/-             as      lump        sum
compensation shall be paid to the respondent by the petitioner
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.



                                                               (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
ANUSRI

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANUSRI VASU(HC02352), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 03/03/2026 16:48:44




                                                Page 6 of 6