VIRABHAI GALABHAI PATELIYA SINCE DECD. THROUGH LHSversusDEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BHADAR NAHER VITRAN SUB DIVISION

    C/SCA/12339/2025                                      ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12339 of 2025

================================================================
 VIRABHAI GALABHAI PATELIYA SINCE DECD. THROUGH LHS & ORS.
                           Versus
    DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BHADAR NAHER VITRAN SUB
                          DIVISION
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5
MS AGNEYA MANKAD, AGP (ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                                Date : 08/01/2026

                                 ORAL ORDER


[1] Rule returnable forthwith. Present petition is filed by the heirs of
deceased employee under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 against the impugned award dated 09.08.2024 passed by
the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 90 of 2014 with below
mentioned relief/s:-

      “(A) A writ of certiorari and/or a writ in the nature of Certiorari and / or any
      other appropriate writ, order of direction be issued to quash and set aside
      impugned award dated 09.08.2024 passed by Labour Court, Godhra, in
      Reference (T) No.90 of 2014 qua not allowing the Reference of the
      petitioner in full and further may be pleased to direct the respondents to
      reinstate petitioner in service with continuity and pay full back wages and
      all consequential benefits to the petitioner no. 1/1 until the date of death of
      her husband and after that, the petitioner 1/1 may be held entitled to all
      the retirement benefits including pension, gratuity, leave encashment and
      other retirement benefits treating deceased workman’s service continuous;

      (B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this
      Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct respondents to confer pensionary
      benefits to the petitioner no. 1/1 ;




                                     Page 1 of 10
    C/SCA/12339/2025                                ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026




      (C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon’ble Court
      deemed fit, in the interest of justice, may kindly be granted."


[2] Heard Dipak R. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner and
Ms.Agneya Mankad, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent.


[3] Mr.Dipak R. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
in case of the similarly situated workmen, who have been terminated
by the respondent employer, serving in the same irrigation
department, this Court vide order dated 14.2.2020/20.1.2020 allowed
Special Civil Application No. 22362 of 2019 and allied petitions and
granted benefits to the concerned workmen. It is submitted that in the
similar cases of very department at very canal division in Special civil
Application No.2205 of 2023, this court has while modifying award of
lumpsum compensation granted relief of considering the service of
the employee as continuous until he reached age of superannuation.
Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
though the Labour Court has observed that the respondent has not
produced any documents however, Labour Court has not considered
this fact and therefore, while passing the impugned award the Labour
Court has committed serious error and therefore, the impugned award
passed by the Labour Court is erroneous, unjust, illegal. Mr. Dave,
learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Labour
Court has observed that all the issues are proved by the petitioner by
material and cogent evidence however, merely on conjectures and
surmises that the workman has expired, the Labour Court has
awarded lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- which is
bad in law and not in consonance with the settled legal principle.




                                 Page 2 of 10
    C/SCA/12339/2025                             ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026




[3.1] Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his
submissions, relied upon and referred to the decisions of the
coordinate bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.22362 of
2019 and allied petitions, Special Civil Application No. 4168 of 2022
with Special Civil Application No.4198 of 2022 and the order passed
by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal
No.389 of 2024 and urges that the impugned award passed by the
Labour Court be modified in the line of the observations made in the
said decisions.


[3.2] Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the order passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of the
concerned workman is further carried in Appeal by the State before
the Division Bench by way of preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. 389
of 2024 and the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 7.8.2024
confirmed the said order and rejected the Letters Patent Appeal No.
389 of 2024 filed by the State and therefore, similar order may be
passed in present petition also.


[4] Per contra, Ms.Mankad, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
the respondent has strongly opposed and objected present petition by
and submitted that the petitioner workman has not proved that he
has worked in the said Canal and there was no documentary evidence
produced by the petitioner and urged to dismiss the petition.


[4.1] In view of the above submissions, Ms. Mankad, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the respondent urges before the Court that
petition of the employee may not be entertained and the same may
be rejected and impugned order passed by the Labour Court may be
upheld.


                               Page 3 of 10
    C/SCA/12339/2025                             ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026




[5] I have considered the material and relevant documents placed on
record. I have also gone through the record of the petition as well as
the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and the relevant
papers appended to the petition.


[6] It appears that the issue involved in present petition has already
been decided by two different coordinate benches of this Court
wherein services of similarly situated workmen, who were working in
the same ofÏce and at the same site came to be terminated and the
workmen have challenged the said order of termination before the
Labour Court and Labour Court has awarded lumpsum compensation
by rejecting the order of reinstatement. The said order was
challenged by the concerned workmen before this Court by way of
preferring Special Civil Application No.22362 of 2019 and allied
petition, whereby after hearing the parties, the coordinate bench of
this Court has passed an order dated 14.2.2020/20.1.2020 and
allowed the group of petitions, keeping in mind the observations
made in paragraph Nos. 9, 10 and 11.


[7] The said petition came to be allowed with the direction to the
respondent to consider the case of all the concerned workmen for
retirement benefits, who have attained the age of superannuation
instead of granting reinstatement, till the date of superannuation with
continuity of service. It is not in dispute that in case of Jawanbhai
Malabhai Pagi, Special civil Application No.2205 of 2023 which is of
Bhadar Canal Sub Division, Lunawada i.e very respondent, in case of
similarly situated employee, this court has modified award of
compensation by allowing the petition of an employee and directed to
treat his service as continuous till date of retirement and to pay all


                               Page 4 of 10
    C/SCA/12339/2025                                       ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026




retirement benefits which is confirmed in LPA No. 855 of 2025.


[8] Similarly situated workman through his heirs has filed present
petition and therefore, similar order is required to be passed in the
facts of the present petition also.


[9] At this stage, it appropriate to take into account the similar
observation made by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Special
Civil Application No. 4168 of 2022 and Special Civil Application No.
4189 of 2022 vide judgment dated 24.6.2022 which reads as under:-

      "10. Accordingly, as held by this Court in the judgement of Chhatrasing
      Marutising Bariya vs. Dy. Executive Engineer & Ors., the petitions are
      allowed. Under the circumstances, the impugned award passed by the
      Labour Court is erroneous to the extent of granting compensation. The
      respondents are directed to reinstate the workmen in service with
      continuity of service. However, it is clarified that they will not be entitled to
      any backwages as they have given up their claims. After their
      reinstatement, it will be open for the petitioners – workmen to file a
      representation claiming the benefits of Government Resolution dated
      17.10.1988.The order reinstating the petitioner workmen shall be passed
      within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The
      amount of compensation, if already paid to the workmen, the same shall be
      adjusted while fixing their pay.

      11. As far as petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 4189 of 2022 is
      concerned, he has attained the age of superannuation. The Court accedes
      to the request of quashing and setting aside the order of lump-sum
      compensation and instead grant the reinstatement till the date of
      superannuation with continuity of service. The back wages has been
      forgone by the employee with the grant of continuity to him who has
      attained the age of superannuation. He shall be paid consequentially the
      retirement benefits on the strength of modified award in not later than
      twelve weeks’ time from the date of receipt of copy of this order."


[10] It is also required to be noted herein that the Hon'ble Division
Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 389 of 2024 has confirmed the
order passed by the learned Single Judge and observed that:-

      “10. On a perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court, we find that the


                                     Page 5 of 10
    C/SCA/12339/2025                                     ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026




      Labour Court had directed the employer to produce muster-roll to satisfy as
      to whether from which year, the workman has completed 240 days. Despite
      the aforesaid direction, the employer of the respondent-workman did not
      produce the same. It is asserted by the workman that he was engaged from
      1994 to 1997 however, his service was terminated from 03.10.1997. The
      learned Single Judge after placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme
      Court in the case of R.M. Yellatti (supra), has held that the termination was
      not in violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Act, no muster roll was
      produced by the employer, though directed by the Labour Court.

      11. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order, more
      particularly in paragraph No.6 has held thus : -

              “6. Apart from setting out the number of days that the respondent
              had worked in the years 1994 to 1997 as referred to herein above,
              perusal of the award of the Labour Court would indicate that in one
              of the references which was heard together with the present
              reference, at mark 20/1, the employer was called upon to produce
              the muster roll to satisfy the Labour Court as to whether in each
              year of service, the workman had completed 240 days. At mark
              17/1, the deposition of the employer’s witness Ravindran
              Karunakaran Nair was also considered. The Labour Court considering
              the decision of the Supreme Court in case of R.M.Yellatti v. Assi.
              Executive Engineer reported in 2006 SSC (L&S) 1 held that adverse
              inference has to be drawn in the event of employer having failed to
              produce oral as well as documentary evidence on record. Even
              otherwise, this Court had an occasion to deal with the awards of a
              similar nature where the Labour Court fell short of awarding
              reinstatement and awarded compensation. The petitions were filed
              by the State challenging the award of reinstatement with 10% back-
              wages and those of some workmen who are already awarded
              compensation. In the oral order dated 20.01.2020, the Court
              confirmed the orders of reinstatement, however, set aside the order
              of granting 10% back-wages. In other words, the award of
              reinstatement without back – wages was the award of the Labour
              Court which was in terms modified.”

      12. We are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the
      learned Single Judge. We have also noticed that the Department, in which
      the respondent-workman was working was never closed down and there
      were other employees, who were working along with the present workman.
      It is also not in dispute that no seniority list has been produced by the
      appellant before the Labour Court, and hence, the Labour Court is justified
      in holding the termination in violation of Section 25G and H of the I.D. Act."


[11] Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has rejected the Letters
Patent Appeal filed by the State and confirmed the order passed by
the learned Single Judge and observed paragraph No. 13 as under:-


                                    Page 6 of 10
    C/SCA/12339/2025                                     ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026




         "13. Thus we do not find any reason for interfering the judgment and order
         passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present appeal fails. The
         same is hereby rejected accordingly."


[12] Therefore, the orders passed by the two different coordinate
benches of this Court are now confirmed by the Hon'ble Division
Bench and therefore, this Court has no any other alternate but to pass
the similar order in view of the order passed by the two different
coordinate bench of this Court and confirmed by Division Bench of this
Court.


[13] It is required to be noted herein that once the coordinate bench
of this Court has considered the submissions and passed the order
which is upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench, for considering the
judicial discipline and propriety, this Court has no any alternate but to
pass the similar order as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, time
and again that in similar identical facts, if one coordinate bench has
taken the view then the another coordinate bench has to follow the
same.


[14] It is also appropriate to take into account that in the another
group of Letters Patent Appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 622 of
2024 the court has confirmed the order of learned Single Judge in the
similarly situated workman on the same line, where the Labour Court
has awarded lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and that
was interfered by coordinate bench of this Court, which is upheld by
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
622 of 2024. Relevant paragraph No. 3 read as under:-

         “3. The Division Bench vide order dated 19.03.2024 passed in Letters
         Patent Appeal No.190 of 2024, has held in paragraphs, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and


                                     Page 7 of 10
C/SCA/12339/2025                                     ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026




  10 as under:

          “4. It is further noted by the learned Single Judge that the only
          documents, that were produced by the employer, were for the
          period from January 2007 to December 2009. The contention on
          behalf of the State was that on account of delay of 2 years in raising
          the dispute,when the work at the Canal had been outsourced,
          reinstatement was not possible, that too after a lapse of 20 years
          from the date of termination of the services of the petitioner, as
          admitted to the petitioner.

          5. These findings returned by the learned Single Judge are sought to
          be assailed by Ms. Hetal Patel, learned Assistant Government
          Pleader, appearing for the State- appellant, with the assertions in
          the written statement placed before us. It is sought to be submitted
          that the petitioner was engaged in a project which has come to an
          end and he was never engaged by the Bhadar Canal Sub-Division.

          6. This statement made in the written statement is found to be
          wrong for the simple reason that on the asking of the Labour Court,
          the employer had produced the attendance records of only last
          three years, i.e. for the period from January 2007 to December
          2009. It was not the case of the appellant- employer that the
          petitioner was never engaged in the department. The complete
          record establishing the period of working of the petitioner even in
          the Project, wherein he was allegedly engaged by the respondent as
          per the contentions in the written statement, had not been produced
          by the employer.

          7. The best evidence was in the custody of the appellant employer
          and for not producing the entire record including the attendance-
          sheet to establish the actual period of working of the petitioner,
          adverse inference was required to be drawn by the Labour Court.

          8. It is an admitted fact of the matter that apart from the
          attendance-sheet of three years, no oral or documentary evidence
          was placed by the appellant department before the Labour Court
          and the best evidence was withheld in spite of the specific directions
          issued by the Labour Court.

          9. We are, therefore, of the view that the findings returned by the
          learned Single Judge that the compensation in lieu of reinstatement
          will be detrimental to the petitioner, who has worked over a period
          of 20 years and who has been illegally restrained from working at
          the instance of the employer. As the respondent department/
          appellant herein has failed to establish the period of working of the
          petitioner, who has admittedly been engaged in the department
          since 1983 till July 2011, as categorically stated by the workman, we
          are of the considered view that for violation of the Section 25-F, G
          and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, the reinstatement ought to
          have been followed, as directed by the learned Single Judge.



                                Page 8 of 10
    C/SCA/12339/2025                                   ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026




              10. For the aforesaid, no case is made out for interference. The
              appeal is, therefore, DISMISSED, afiirming the order passed by the
              learned Single Judge. Pending Civil Application also stands
              DISPOSED OF.”


[15] In the present case labour court has rightly considered evidence
on record and relying upon Judgment of Hon’ble supreme court in
case of Director, Fisheries terminal division, AIR 2010 SC 1236, held
that the employee has rendered continuous service as per section
25B of ID Act. The Labour court, Godhra in reference (T) no.148 of
2013 has passed identically worded award and as only compensation
was granted, the same was modified in Special Civil Application
No.2205 of 2023 and confirmed in LPA No. 855 of 2025. In the present
case thus looking to 24 years of service from March, 1987 to June,
2011, the Labour court erred in granting compensation.


[16] In view of the above observations and keeping in mind the
observations made by the two different Coordinate Benches of this
Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 22362 of 2019 and 4168 of
2022 with 4189 of 2022 and confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench
of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 389 of 2024, present
petition is hereby allowed. The impugned award dated 09.08.2024
passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 90 of 2014 is
hereby modified and the respondent is hereby directed to consider
the service of the deceased workman- petitioner, as continuous on
the same line and treat the deceased workman in continuous service
till he has expired i.e., till 04.06.2015 and pay all the retiral
consequential benefits, as directed by two co-ordinate benches of this
Court and upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench.


[17] All the consequential reliefs and retiral benefits, as granted by


                                   Page 9 of 10
         C/SCA/12339/2025                                                         ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026




 the two different Coordinate Benches of this Court in Special Civil
 Application Nos. 22362 of 2019 and 4168 of 2022 with 4189 of 2022
 and confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Letters
 Patent Appeal No. 389 of 2024, shall be paid to the present petitioner
 no.1/1, wife of deceased workman within period of three months from
 the date of receipt of copy of writ of this order.


 [18] Accordingly the petition stands disposed of. Rule made absolute
 to the above extent. 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 08/01/2026 17:16:46

                                                    Page 10 of 10