MOHANBHAI SHIVRAMBHAI GAHALAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

  C/SCA/13590/2025                               JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13590 of 2025


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-

==========================================================

          Approved for Reporting                Yes          No
                                                             No
==========================================================
                     MOHANBHAI SHIVRAMBHAI GAHALA
                                 Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JIGNESH D LAMBA(12891) WITH MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                            Date : 17/02/2026

                            ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of
notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. Present petition is     led by the petitioner under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions of
Industrial Disputes Act challenging the impugned award
dated 11.03.2025 in Reference (LCV) No. 17 of 2016 passed
by the Labour Court, Valsad, whereby the Labour Court has
partly allowed the reference and awarded Rs.60,000/- as
lumpsum compensation without continuity of service and

                                Page 1 of 6
  C/SCA/13590/2025                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




reinstatement.


3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was working, as a
Watchman with the respondent from 2010 to 1.8.2015. During
his   service        tenure,   the      employer    was      never      issued
appointment letter. No identity card, service book, seniority
record or statutory bene ts were extended to petitioner. On
1.8.2015 the petitioner was orally and arbitrarily discharged
from service by the respondent without following due
procedure. Being aggrieved with the said termination, the
petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour
Court, and the Labour Court, vide order dated 11.03.2025
partly    allowed       the    said     reference   and      awarded         the
aforementioned relief.


3.1 Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court,
the petitioner has preferred present petition.


4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

5. Mr. Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of
petition and has submitted that the petitioner has rendered
his service with respondent for six years and therefore,
Labour Court has committed error in passing the impugned
order. He has submitted that before the Labour Court, the
petitioner has proved the violation of Section 25 F, G and H
and therefore, the Labour Court ought to have granted
reinstatement. He has submitted that present petition may be
allowed.


                                     Page 2 of 6
  C/SCA/13590/2025                               JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




6. On the other hand, Ms. Patel, learned AGP for the
respondent has objected the petition and submitted that the
Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the
impugned judgment. She has submitted that infact the
impugned award passed by the Labour Court is in consonance
with the provisions of law and hence prayed for rejection of
the petition.


7. 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
lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs.60,000/-. 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 interest of
justice would be subserved, if lump sum compensation
awarded in favour of the workman is enhanced.


8. The relevant para – 10 of the oral order dated 18.04.2024

                                 Page 3 of 6
  C/SCA/13590/2025                               JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




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
       Sr.No.
                          compensation           sum 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



                                 Page 4 of 6
  C/SCA/13590/2025                               JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




       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
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.3,00,000/- to the workman, which will
serve the ends of justice.

11. In view of the above, present petition is partly allowed.
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.3,00,000/- as lump sum compensation shall
be paid to the workman by the employer 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


                                Page 5 of 6
    C/SCA/13590/2025                                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




writ of this order. If the amount of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the
Labour Court is paid by the employer then the same shall be
deducted from the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and if
the said amount is not paid then the lump sum amount which
is awarded by this Court shall be paid to the workman. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order
as to costs.

                                                                                            Sd/-
                                                                        (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
 Digitally signed by: SURESHKUMAR MOTIBHAI SOLANKI(HC00208), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 21/02/2026 13:04:03




                                                       Page 6 of 6