BABURAO KOLIversusMANAGER SHRI, J.P. EXTRUSIONTECH LTD.

     C/SCA/4138/2020                              JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4138 of 2020


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

            Approved for Reporting               Yes          No

===============================================================
                            BABURAO KOLI
                                  Versus
                  MANAGER SHRI, J.P. EXTRUSIONTECH LTD.
===============================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
KRUTARTH K DESAI(9662) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                             Date : 25/02/2026

                               JUDGMENT


1.      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 issue a writ of
        mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or direction in the
        nature of mandamus by quashing and setting aside the
        impugned award passed by the learned Presiding O cer, Judge
        (SD), Labour Court No.1, Bharuch, in Reference (LCB) No.81 of
        2018 dated 18.04.2019, as it being ex-facie illegal, improper,
        unjust, unfair and without following the principles of natural
        justice, in the interest of justice and thereby directed the
        respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back
        wages, in the interest of justice;



                                 Page 1 of 7
     C/SCA/4138/2020                              JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026




        (B) During pendency of admission, hearing and 5nal disposal of
        this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the
        implementation, operation and execution of the impugned
        award passed by the learned Presiding O cer, Judge (SD),
        Labour Court No.1, Bharuch, in Reference (LCB) No.81 of 2018
        dated 18.04.2019, as it being ex-facie illegal, improper, unjust,
        unfair and without following the principles of natural justice, in
        the interest of justice.

        (C) Any other and further relief as may be deemed 5t just and
        proper may kindly be granted in favour of the Petitioner, in the
        interest of justice.”


2.      Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
petitioner was employed with the respondent Company as Driller
since 01.02.1996 and his last drawn salary was Rs. 16,804/-. The
petitioner was terminated from services by the respondent
subsequent to the enquiry proceedings initiated against the
petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner raised industrial dispute
regarding         his   termination   before    the   Assistant       Labour
Commissioner. That, on being satis ed regarding the existence
of industrial dispute between the parties, the Assistant Labour
Commissioner made a reference on 27.09.2018 under Section
10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication by
the Labour Court. Thereafter, the petitioner               led Reference
before the Labour Court seeking reinstatement to his original
post with continuity of service with full backwages. That, the
Presiding O6cer, Judge (SD), Labour Court No.1, Bharuch in
Reference (LCB) No.81 of 2018, dated 18.04.2019 has rejected
the Reference led by the petitioner.


3.      Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned award
dated 18.04.2019 passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has


                                  Page 2 of 7
     C/SCA/4138/2020                        JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026




preferred the present petition.


4.      Heard Mr. Yogen Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Krutharth Desai, learned counsel for the respondent.
Perused the material available on record.


5.      Learned counsel Mr. Pandya has submitted that the
impugned judgment and award 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. He has submitted that the
Labour Court has misinterpreted the provisions of Section 11-A of
the ID Act as well as the provisions of Rules 24(a), 24(c), 24(k),
24(l), 24(m), 24(x) of the Model Standing Orders, while passing
the impugned award. He has submitted that the Labour Court
ought not to have appreciated the submission that the petitioner
indulged in misconduct for which charge-sheet was issued to
him. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of
petition, learned counsel Mr. Pandya has urged that the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Cour is
required to be quashed and set aside and the present petition is
required to be allowed.


6.      As against that, learned counsel Mr. Desai, appearing for
the respondent, has strongly opposed the present petition and
submitted that there is no any in rmity or any illegality in the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court and
therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the
present petition. He has submitted that proper and fair chances
were given to the petitioner to produce his defense during the

                              Page 3 of 7
     C/SCA/4138/2020                          JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026




course of enquiry proceedings and the petitioner had actively
participated in the enquiry proceedings which were conducted in
accordance with the principles of natural justice. He has
submitted that the petitioner was served with the second show
cause notice along with the enquiry report for his reply however,
the petitioner did not receive the same and adopted all ways and
means to avoid the delivery of the same. He has submitted that
it was not an allegation of sleeping on duty for the period of 4
days on the petitioner but the allegation was that, the petitioner
was remaining absent from performing his duty while on duty
and was not present at his duty place. He has submitted that the
impugned judgment and award 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.



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


                              Page 4 of 7
     C/SCA/4138/2020                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026




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.

8.      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:




                                      Page 5 of 7
      C/SCA/4138/2020                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026




                                                                   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



9.       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.”

10.      Now, considering the materials placed on record and the
peculiar facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that

                                     Page 6 of 7
      C/SCA/4138/2020                                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026




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
petitioner, which will serve the ends of justice.


11.      With the aforesaid conclusion, the petition stands allowed
in part. The impugned award 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 petitioner by the respondent
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 27/02/2026 15:41:16




                                                Page 7 of 7