GANESH LAXMI PROCESSORS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSHYAMLAL RAMLAKHAN VERMA

     C/SCA/3164/2025                                ORDER DATED: 17/02/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3164 of 2025

================================================================
              GANESH LAXMI PROCESSORS PRIVATE LIMITED
                               Versus
                    SHYAMLAL RAMLAKHAN VERMA
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                            Date : 17/02/2026

                             ORAL ORDER


1.    Rule returnable forthwith. Learned counsel Mr. U.T. Mishra,
waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent-
workman.


2.    Present petition is !led by the petitioner – Company under
Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order
dated 24.05.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Surat in T. Application
No. 662 of 2004, whereby, the learned Judge has partly allowed the
application !led by the respondent-workman and directed the
petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman in service with 50%
back wages, and the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the learned
Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Appeal (I.C.) No. 1 of 2024, whereby, the
learned Tribunal has rejected the appeal preferred by the present
petitioner.


3.    Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
respondent-workman approached the Labour Court, Surat by way of


                                Page 1 of 7
     C/SCA/3164/2025                               ORDER DATED: 17/02/2026




!ling T. Application No. 662 of 2004 inter alia alleging that he was
serving in the petitioner-Company as Jigar Operator in Dyeing
Department since last eight years and he was illegally terminated by
the petitioner. That, the respondent-workman had never served the
petitioner at any point of time and there was no employer-employee
relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. That, in his
cross-examination, the respondent-workman has admitted that he
was earning daily wage of Rs. 200/- by doing labour work. That, the
respondent-workman did not produce any evidence to show any
employer-employee relationship, however, the Labour Court held that
respondent-workman was illegally terminated from service and
passed the impugned award dated 24.05.2017 directing the petitioner
to reinstate the respondent-workman in service with 50% back wages.
That, the respondent-workman !led Recovery Application under
Section 33C(2) being No. 71 of 2018, wherein, the Labour Court
directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 3,14,554/- along with
cost of Rs. 5,000/- by order dated 18.11.2021. Being aggrieved by and
dissatis!ed with the award dated 24.05.2017, the petitioner !led an
appeal being Appeal (IC) No. 1 of 2024 before the Industrial Tribunal,
Surat along with application for condonation of delay, wherein, after
condoning the delay, appeal was heard on merits and vide impugned
order dated 30.09.2024 the Tribunal has rejected the appeal.


4.    Being aggrieved and dissatis!ed with the impugned orders
dated 24.05.2017 passed by the Labour Court and 30.09.2024 passed
by the Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred this petition under
Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.


5.    Heard Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner–Company and Mr. U.T. Mishra, learned counsel appearing


                                Page 2 of 7
     C/SCA/3164/2025                           ORDER DATED: 17/02/2026




for the respondent-workman.


6.    Learned counsel Mr. Dave has submitted that the impugned
orders passed by the courts below are illegal, unjust, arbitrary,
erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on record and the
provisions of the Act and therefore, the same are required to be
quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the Labour Court has
not considered the fact that the respondent-workman had failed to
produce any document to show employer-employee relationship
between the petitioner and the respondent-workman. He has
submitted that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate the fact that
the respondent cannot be allowed to produce documents after
evidence of both the sides were over and for the !rst time in the year
2018, the so-called documents narrating that on a complaint made by
the respondent through union, action was taken, were placed on
record. He has submitted that the respondent-workman had not
produced any documents before the Labour Court to show that he had
made e?orts to !nd out alternative job and thus, the Labour Court has
committed a serious error in granting reinstatement with 50% back
wages, which is absolutely unjust, erroneous and illegal. He has
further submitted that the Tribunal has mechanically con!rmed the
!ndings recorded by the Labour Court and no independent !ndings
have been recorded by the Tribunal and thus, the Tribunal has failed
to appreciate that it has to re-appreciate the evidence threadbare and
has to record its own !ndings. He has submitted that the Tribunal
without framing independent issues, has mechanically reproduced the
!ndings recorded by the Labour Court and con!rmed the order in a
mechanical manner, which is illegal, erroneous and unjust. Over and
above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel
Mr. Dave has urged that the impugned orders are required to be


                               Page 3 of 7
     C/SCA/3164/2025                               ORDER DATED: 17/02/2026




quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be
allowed.


7.    As against that, learned counsel Mr. Mishra, 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 orders passed by the Courts below and therefore, no
interference is required to be called for in the present petition.
Learned counsel Mr. Mishra has referred and relied upon the decision
of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal
No. 908 of 2023 and other allied matters, more particularly the
observations made in paras-7, 10 and 11 and urged that appropriate
orders be passed.


8.    I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also gone
through the impugned orders passed by the Courts below.
Considering the submissions canvassed by learned counsel appearing
for the respective parties and the impugned judgment and award
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, on the other hand, the Labour Court
has awarded the aforementioned relief, which is con!rmed by the
Tribunal. 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


                              Page 4 of 7
      C/SCA/3164/2025                                       ORDER DATED: 17/02/2026




Patent Appeal No.1091 of 2023 and allied appeals more
particularly paras – 5 and 6, this Court is of the opinion that interest of
justice would be subserved, if lump sump compensation is awarded in
favour of the workman.

8.1    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 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 sum
          Sr.No.
                                 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



                                          Page 5 of 7
      C/SCA/3164/2025                                   ORDER DATED: 17/02/2026




8.2    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 Appeals stand dismissed as
         no ground is made out to interfere with the order of the learned
         Single Judge.”


9.     Now, considering the materials placed on record and the
peculiar facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that considering
the tenure of 8 years’ service, it will be in !tness of things if the award
passed by the Labour Court is suitably modi!ed in light of the



                                     Page 6 of 7
         C/SCA/3164/2025                                                         ORDER DATED: 17/02/2026




 aforestated position of Law by granting lumpsum compensation of
 Rs.3,25,000/- towards full and !nal settlement of all the dues of the
 employee.


 10.       In view of above, present petition is partly allowed. The
 impugned judgment and award dated 24.05.2017 passed by the
 Labour Court, Surat in T. Application No. 662 of 2004 is hereby
 modi!ed accordingly. An amount of Rs.3,25,000/- as lump sum
 compensation shall be paid to the workman 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. 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 19/02/2026 15:34:26


                                                     Page 7 of 7