SOVANJI VALAJI THAKARADAversusRANGE FOREST OFFICER

     C/SCA/1320/2025                             ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1320 of 2025

=============================================================
                        SOVANJI VALAJI THAKARADA
                                  Versus
                       RANGE FOREST OFFICER & ANR.
=============================================================
Appearance:
MR ND SONGARA(2198) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS JANHVI N SONGARA(13254) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                             Date : 29/01/2026

                              ORAL ORDER


1.    Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking following reliefs:

      “(A) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of
      Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
      in the like nature to quash and set aside the impugned award
      dated 06.09.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court, Palanpur
      in Reference (LCP) No. 10 of 2020 qua denying the
      reinstatement with continuity of service and with full back
      wages for intervening period and with all consequential
      benefits.

      (B) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to allow the
      Reference (LCP) No. 10 of 2020 filed by the petitioner by
      granting reinstatement with continuity of service and with full
      back wages for intervening period and with all consequential
      benefits.

      (C) Any other and further relief may kindly be granted as
      Your Lordships deem fit, just and proper in the interest of
      justice.”



                                 Page 1 of 7
     C/SCA/1320/2025                                       ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026




2.    Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
petitioner - workman was working as a daily wager Nursery
Labourer (Protected Workman) with the respondent since
01.02.2000. On 01.06.2018, the petitioner was orally terminated
from the services by the respondent without giving any notice,
notice     pay         and/or       without      paying     any      retrenchment
compensation. That, the petitioner had put in more than 17
years of continuous service with the respondent and had
completed 240 days service in each year. That, the petitioner
had raised an industrial dispute being Reference (LCP) No. 10 of
2020 before the Labour Court, Palanpur. That, the Forest and
Environment Department, State of Gujarat had issued GR dated
15.09.2014, whereby, the Government had decided to grant the
benefits of GR dated 17.10.1988 to those daily wagers who had
completed 5 years service on or after 29.10.2010. That, the
petitioner had filed Statement of Claim (Ex. 9) before the Labour
Court, Palanpur inter alia praying that the respondents, without
following the due procedure of law contemplated under Section
25(F), 25 (G) and 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had
illegally and arbitrarily terminated the services of the petitioner.
That, the respondent had filed Written Statement (Ex. 12) and
statement showing the working days of the petitioner (Ex.17)
before the Labour Court. That, the Labour Court, Palanpur, after
hearing      the       parties     passed      an      impugned    Award        dated
06.09.2024 in Reference (LCP) No. 10 of 2020, whereby, the
Labour Court has awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.
1,00,000/-      towards          full   and    final    settlement     in    lieu    of


                                        Page 2 of 7
     C/SCA/1320/2025                         ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026




reinstatement, continuity of service and full back wages for
intervening period.


3.    Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award
dated 06.09.2024 passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has
preferred the present petition.


4.    Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
Perused the material available on record.


5.    Mr. Songara, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the impugned 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 erred and not considered
the fact that the petitioner had put in more than 18 years of
continuous service and completed 240 days in each year. He has
submitted that though the Labour Court had categorically come
to the conclusion that the termination of the petitioner was in
violation of section 25 F, G and H of the ID Act, no relief of
reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages was
granted. He has submitted that the Labour Court had erred in
interpreting the GR dated 15.09.2014 wherein the government
had decided to engage new daily wagers from the date of the
said resolution i.e. 15.09.2014. However, the petitioner was
appointed prior to the date of GR and therefore, there was no


                             Page 3 of 7
     C/SCA/1320/2025                         ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026




question of engaging as new daily wager. He has submitted that
the employer and employee relationship between the petitioner
and respondent had been proved by the petitioner and the
Labour Court had also arrived at the same conclusion. He has
submitted that the petitioner had filed production application
before the Labour Court inter alia seeking certain documentary
evidences to prove his case and which were in possession of the
respondent however, the documents were not produced by the
respondent. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo
of petition, learned counsel Mr. Songara has urged that the
impugned award passed by the Labour Court is required to be
quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be
allowed.


6.    As against that, Ms.Patel, learned AGP appearing for the
respondent, has opposed the present petition and submitted that
there is no any infirmity 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. She has
submitted that the impugned 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 confirmed 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 learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties and the impugned award

                             Page 4 of 7
     C/SCA/1320/2025                                   ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026




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 Rs.1,00,000/- which is erroneous. 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
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 the purpose would be served if lump sum
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Labour Court is
enhanced.

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


                                   Page 5 of 7
     C/SCA/1320/2025                                    ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026




      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 effect 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:

                                                                  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 different 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


                                    Page 6 of 7
           C/SCA/1320/2025                                                   ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026




             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 and considering the fact that the
    petitioner-workman had worked for 18 years, this Court is of the
    opinion        that       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.7,50,000/- as full
    and final settlement to the petitioner-workman, 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 modified
    accordingly. An amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- as lump sum
    compensation shall be paid to the petitioner-workman by the
    respondent after proper verification 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. If the amount of
    Rs.1,00,000/- is paid by the respondent then the same shall be
    deducted from the aforesaid amount of Rs.7,50,000/- and if the
    said amount is not paid then the lump sum amount which is
    awarded by this Court shall be paid to the petitioner-workman.
    Notice is discharged. 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 03/02/2026 17:25:13

                                                   Page 7 of 7