MANGABHAI NOGHABHAI ALIES NONGHABHAI ALGOTARversusBRTS SITY LINK, SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

     C/SCA/9944/2025                               JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9944 of 2025


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

            Approved for Reporting                Yes          No

================================================================
         MANGABHAI NOGHABHAI ALIES NONGHABHAI ALGOTAR
                               Versus
        BRTS SITY LINK, SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
AAKASH D MODI(7449) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                              Date : 02/03/2026

                                JUDGMENT


1.      RULE. Learned counsel Mr. Yogi Gadhia, waives service of
notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.2.


2.      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”) challenging the judgment and award dated 16.04.2024 passed
by the learned Presiding O4cer, Labour Court, Surat (hereinafter be
referred to as “the Labour Court”) in Reference (T) No. 96 of 2019,
whereby, the learned Judge has rejected the reference               led by the
present petitioner.


                                  Page 1 of 7
     C/SCA/9944/2025                            JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




3.      Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
petitioner was working the with respondents as Driver and has
continuously worked with the respondents from 16.12.2016 till the
date of termination. That, the petitioner met with an accident on
26.01.2018 and sustained an eye injury. That, the services of the
petitioner came to be terminated on 21.03.2018 without following the
procedure as contemplated under provisions of law and therefore, the
petitioner lodged a complaint under the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 before the Conciliation o4cer, Surat. That, the
dispute could not be resolved; therefore, the appropriate government
has referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Surat for further
adjudication, which came to be registered as being Reference (T)
Case No. 96 of 2019. That, after completion of the pleadings and
evidence as well as hearing both the parties, the Labour Court, Surat
passed an award dated 16.04.2024 in Reference (T) Case No. 96 of
2019 below Exh.50, whereby, the Labour Court rejected the Reference
 led by the present petitioner.


4.      Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned award
dated 16.04.2024 passed by the learned Presiding O4cer, Labour
Court, Surat in Reference (T) No. 96 of 2019, the petitioner has
preferred this petition.


5.      Heard Mr. Aakash Modi, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner-employee and Mr. Yogi Gadhia, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent No.2-employer.


6.      Learned counsel Mr. Modi has submitted that the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is illegal, unjust,


                                  Page 2 of 7
   C/SCA/9944/2025                             JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on record
and the provisions of the Act and is based on assumption and
presumption and therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside.
He has submitted that the the Labour Court has not properly
appreciated the evidences produced before the Labour Court and
thus, the     ndings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse and
contrary to the facts and evidences available on record. He has
submitted that though the petitioner had completed 240 days in
service in a preceding year and had continuously worked with the
respondent, however, the services of the petitioner came to be
terminated by the respondents. He has further submitted that the
respondents have not paid any compensation and no notice was
issued to the petitioner before terminating form the services and thus,
the respondents have not complied with the mandatory provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has submitted that the Labour
Court has not considered the fact that the respondents have not
issued/produced termination order and/or show cause notice to the
present petitioner on ground of continuous illness and thus, in
absence of the Medical Examination of employee by the Medical
o4cer prior to termination of service, the termination of service of the
petitioner is unfair, unjust, illegal and contrary to the principles of
natural justice. He has submitted that the petitioner met with an
accident on 26.01.2018 and thereafter, the petitioner was undergoing
treatment for vision of the right eye, however, without ascertaining
the fact that loss of vision of right eye of the petitioner was
permanent or temporary, and without any medical report of in support
permanent/partial vision loss of right eye of the petitioner, the
respondents employer have terminated the services of the petitioner,
and hence, the impugned award is erroneous, illegal and unjust. Over
and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned


                                Page 3 of 7
     C/SCA/9944/2025                           JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




counsel Mr. Modi has urged that the impugned award is required to be
quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be
allowed. Learned counsel Mr. Modi 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.


7.      As against that, learned counsel Mr. Yogi Gadhia, appearing for
the respondent-employer, has opposed the present petition and
submitted that there is no any in rmity or any illegality in the
impugned award passed by the Labour Court and therefore, no
interference is required to be called for in the present petition.
However, learned counsel Mr. Gadhia was unable to controvert the
observations made by the Division Bench and submitted 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 judgment and award passed by the Labour
Court. 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 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


                                Page 4 of 7
      C/SCA/9944/2025                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




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.

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



                                          Page 5 of 7
      C/SCA/9944/2025                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




              3               15-20 years                   Rs.7.5 lacs


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 2 years’ service, illegal appointment, etc., it will be in
the      tness of things if, the award passed by the Labour Court is
suitably modi ed in light of the aforestated position of Law by

                                       Page 6 of 7
         C/SCA/9944/2025                                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




 granting lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 16.04.2024 passed by the
 learned Presiding O4cer, Labour Court, Surat in Reference (T) No. 96
 of 2019 is hereby modi ed accordingly. An amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-
 as lump sum compensation shall be paid to the petitioner-workman by
 the respondent No.2-employer, after proper veri cation of the identity
 and bank details through RTGS/NEFT, within a period of four 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)

 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 05/03/2026 17:13:34


                                                     Page 7 of 7