SURYAPAL HARISHCHANDRA SOLANKYversusTHE ADMINISTRATOR OF PRAYOJNA

     C/SCA/9109/2021                              ORDER DATED: 09/02/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9109 of 2021

================================================================
                  SURYAPAL HARISHCHANDRA SOLANKY
                               Versus
                THE ADMINISTRATOR OF PRAYOJNA & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS AGNEYA MANKAD, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                            Date : 09/02/2026

                             ORAL ORDER


1.    Present petition is   led by the petitioner – employee under
Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as “the
Act”) against the judgment and award dated 19.07.2018 passed by
the learned Presiding O/cer, Labour Court, Godhra (hereinafter be
referred to as “the Labour Court”) in Reference (T) No. 144 of 2015,
whereby, the learned Judge has partly allowed the reference led by
the petitioner-employee by granting lumpsum compensation to the
tune of Rs. 30,000/-, in lieu of reinstatement with continuity of service
and backwages.


2.    Brief facts leading to the present petition are that, the
petitioner-workman had worked at the post of Rojamdar Labourer in
the respondent establishment from 01.01.2005 to December 2008.
That, the petitioner had demanded for documents concerned of
employment with respondent, as his services were terminated orally


                                Page 1 of 4
     C/SCA/9109/2021                                ORDER DATED: 09/02/2026




by respondent in December, 2005 in arbitrary manner and in gross
violation of settled provisions of law. Therefore, the petitioner raised
an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the
Labour Court, Godhra being Reference (T) No.144 of 2015, wherein,
the petitioner led a statement of claim for setting aside the order of
termination and respondent        led a written statement through its
advocate to defend its action, moreover petitioner led oral evidence
before the Labour Court to prove his case, while respondent had not
done anything. That, the Labour Court examined the real dispute
between the parties in detailed manner and also took adverse
inference against respondent though facts proved before the Labour
Court that respondent intentionally did not provide documents of
three years relating to employment to the petitioner by observing that
Section 25 (F) and Section 25 (G) are violated by the respondent while
terminating the services of the petitioner. That, the Labour Court after
arriving at     ndings that termination of services of petitioner was in
violation of Section 25 (F) of the Act, however, denied reinstatement
with full back wages to the petitioner while passing the impugned
judgment and award dated 19.07.2018 and partly allowed the
reference by granting limp sum compensation of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs.
5000/- as a cost of litigation to the petitioner.


3.      Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned award
dated 19.07.2018 passed by the learned Presiding O/cer, Labour
Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 144 of 2015, the petitioner has
preferred this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India read with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.


4.    Heard Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf


                                  Page 2 of 4
     C/SCA/9109/2021                            ORDER DATED: 09/02/2026




of the petitioner-employee and Ms. Agneya Mankad, learned Assistant
Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent-
Authority.


5.    Learned counsel Mr. Dave has submitted that, pursuant to the
order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, the petitioner has already been reinstated in service with
continuity of service and, therefore, so far as the prayer for back
wages is concerned, he is not pressing the same. Learned counsel Mr.
Dave has produced a copy of order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the
respondent No.1, reinstating the petitioner in service, the same is
ordered to be taken on record.


6.    Learned AGP Ms. Mankad, appearing for the respondent-
authority, under instructions, submits that during the pendency of this
petition, the petitioner-workman has been reinstated in service with
continuity of service and therefore, appropriate orders may be
passed.


7.    I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. On perusal of the
record it appears that, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 17.02.2022, by way of an interim relief, had directed the
respondent-authority to reinstate the petitioner in service and also
further clari ed that the reinstatement shall be subject to the further
orders passed by this Court and also directed the respondent-
authority to pass appropriate orders of reinstatement on or before the
next date of hearing, failing which, this Court would be constrained to
take coercive action against the respondent. Pursuant to the aforesaid



                                 Page 3 of 4
        C/SCA/9109/2021                                                         ORDER DATED: 09/02/2026




order, the respondent-authority vide order dated 27.09.2023 has
already reinstated the present petitioner-workman with continuity of
service and therefore, the petitioner-workman will not claim any
backwages. Considering all these aspects and considering the order
dated 19.12.2025 passed in similar set of facts in Special Civil
Application No.14929 of 2020, the impugned award passed by the
Labour Court is required to be modi ed.


8.         In the result, the present petition is partly allowed. The
impugned award dated 19.07.2018 passed by the learned Presiding
O/cer, Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 144 of 2015 is
hereby modi ed to the extent that the petitioner shall be entitled to
reinstatement with continuity of service but, without backwages. Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to
costs.
           Direct service is permitted.


                                                                    (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 09/02/2026 16:54:03

                                                     Page 4 of 4