STATE OF GUAJRATversusKANTIBHAI ARJANBHAI BHAMAT

     C/SCA/3295/2025                                    ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3295 of 2025
                                 With
            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11927 of 2025
==========================================================
                             STATE OF GUAJRAT
                                   Versus
                        KANTIBHAI ARJANBHAI BHAMAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS AGNEYA MANKAD AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAVKUMAR I BHOI(12030) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                                Date : 27/01/2026
                                 ORAL ORDER

     ORDER IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3295 of 2025

1. Present petition is        led by the petitioner under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the impugned
judgment and award dated 15.7.2024 passed by Labour Court,
Godhara in Reference (T) No. 55 of 2018 whereby the Labour
Court     has      partly    allowed       the     reference    and      granted
reinstatement          in   favour    of    the    workman       without          any
backwages.

2.    The facts giving rise to present petition are that the
respondent was working with the petitioner from 2007-2008
as Chowkidar and his service came to be terminated by the
petitioner      in     August    2015      without     following       any        due
procedure. Therefore, a reference came to be                    led before the
Labour Court, Godhara being Reference (T) No. 55 of 2018.




                                     Page 1 of 6
      C/SCA/3295/2025                               ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026




2.1    The Labour Court, after hearing the parties and after
evaluating the evidence placed on                  record, has passed
impugned          judgment   and     award.      Being   aggrieved            and
dissatis ed with the impugned judgment and award passed by
the Labour Court, the petitioner has led present petition.

3.     Heard Ms. Agneya Mankad, learned AGP for the
petitioner and Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel for the
respondent workman.

4. Ms. Mankad, learned AGP for the petitioner, has submitted
that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour
Court is erroneous, bad in law and contrary to the facts and
record of the case. She has submitted that the Labour Court
has committed a serious error in holding that the respondent–
workman was in continuous service with the petitioner as
de ned under Section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. She has further submitted that the Labour Court failed
to appreciate the fact that the respondent–workman had not
worked for a continuous period of 240 days in any year. She
has submitted that the respondent was appointed as a daily
wager and was not appointed against any sanctioned post
and, therefore, was not entitled to claim any bene t of the
Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014. She has further
submitted that, in his cross-examination, the respondent
categorically deposed that he was not appointed through any
prescribed recruitment procedure and that he was not issued
any appointment letter. She has submitted that the Labour
Court has committed a grave error in not appreciating the fact
that the respondent had failed to produce any documentary


                                   Page 2 of 6
      C/SCA/3295/2025                    ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026




evidence to establish that he had completed 240 days of
service in any year.

4.1    In view of the above submissions, learned AGP urges
before the Court that present petition may be allowed and the
impugned judgment and award passed by the labour Court
may be quashed and set aside.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel for
the respondent–workman, has submitted that the Labour
Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned
judgment and award. He has submitted that the Labour Court
has passed the impugned judgment and award after properly
appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence placed
on record by both the sides and after considering the facts
and circumstances of the case. He has also submitted that the
Labour Court has rightly held that the respondent–workman
was in continuous service as de ned under Section 25(B) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that the said       nding is
supported by material on record. He urges before the Court
that this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment
and award passed by the Labour Court.

6. 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. In view of the decision of the


                           Page 3 of 6
    C/SCA/3295/2025                              ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026




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 interest of justice would be subserved, if
lump sump compensation is awarded in favour of the
workman in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential
reliefs.


7. 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



                                  Page 4 of 6
    C/SCA/3295/2025                               ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026




       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


8. 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/3295/2025                                                                ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026




            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 6 years, illegal appointment, no
sanctioned set up etc., it will be in                                        tness of things that the
award passed by the Labour court is suitably modi ed in light
of the aforestated position of Law by granting lumpsum
compensation                    of      Rs.3,00,000/-                   towards              full        and            nal
settlement of all the dues of the employee.

10. In view of the above, present petition is partly allowed.
The impugned judgment and award dated 15.7.2024 passed
by Labour Court, Godhara in Reference (T) No. 55 of 2018 is
hereby modi ed accordingly. An amount of Rs.3,00,000/- 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 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.

ORDER IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11927 of 2025


          In view of the order passed by this Court in Special Civil
Application No.3295 of 2025, present petition does not survive
and the same stands dismissed.


                                                                        (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SURESHKUMAR MOTIBHAI SOLANKI(HC00208), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 27/01/2026 17:29:04




                                                       Page 6 of 6