VIDYAMANDIR TRUSTversusRAFIQAHMED M. SINDHI

   C/SCA/1429/2024                              JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1429 of 2024


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-

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

          Approved for Reporting               Yes          No
                                                            No
==========================================================
                         VIDYAMANDIR TRUST
                               Versus
                        RAFIQAHMED M. SINDHI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHINTAN N DESAI(9940) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
ANURADHA G RATHOD(7717) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR GK RATHOD(2386) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                           Date : 23/02/2026

                          ORAL JUDGMENT


1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Anuradha G. Rathod,
learned counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of
respondent.

2. Present petition is    led by the petitioner under Articles 14,
16, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions
of Industrial Disputes Act challenging the impugned award
dated 31.8.2023 in Reference (LCP) No. 50 of 2020 passed by
the Labour Court, Palanpur, whereby the Labour Court has


                               Page 1 of 6
   C/SCA/1429/2024                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




partly allowed the reference and granted reinstatement with
25% backwages.


3. Facts of the case are that the respondent - workman was
appointed as 'Data Entry Operator' vide appointment letter
dated 21.07.2008 with the petitioner. On 3.12.2019 the
respondent voluntarily tendered his resignation from service
and requested for his immediate relieving from service. On
16.12.2019 the petitioner provided relieving cum experience
letter to the respondent. The amount of leave encashment was
also paid to the respondent by the petitioner vide Cheque
No.429070 dated 22.1.2020. Thereafter, on 28.1.2020 the
respondent workman made a communication to the petitioner
stating     that     his   resignation     was   forcefully     taken       and
demanded for reinstatement with all consequential bene ts.

3.1 Thereafter, the respondent raised an industrial dispute
before the Labour Court being Reference (LCP) No.50 of 2020
and the Labour Court, vide order dated 31.8.2023 partly
allowed the said reference and awarded aforementioned
relief.


3.2 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. Chintan Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of
petition and has submitted that the award passed by the


                                  Page 2 of 6
   C/SCA/1429/2024                        JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




Labour Court is illegal, unjust and without appreciation of the
facts of the case and evidence place on record. He has
submitted that the Labour Court has committed an error in
reinstating the respondent with 25% backwages despite the
respondent failing to prove the violation of the provisions of
the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947. He has submitted that the
Labour Cout exceeded its jurisdiction by recording the
evidence which is contrary to the evidence on record as per
the settled proposition of law. Learned counsel for the
petitioner urges before the Court that present petition may be
allowed.

6. On the other hand, Ms. Rathod, learned counsel 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. She has submitted that after taking into account
all the relevant aspects and after going through the relevant
material placed on record the Labour Court has passed the
order and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the
order passed by the Labour Court.


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

                            Page 3 of 6
   C/SCA/1429/2024                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




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 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 is awarded in favour of the workman
in lieu of reinstatement and all other consequential bene ts.


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 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



                                  Page 4 of 6
   C/SCA/1429/2024                               JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




        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
        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


                                 Page 5 of 6
     C/SCA/1429/2024                                                               JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




           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 as well the tenure of service of the
petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that instead of granting
any other relief, it would be just and proper to pay lump sum
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the workman, in lieu of
reinstatement and all other consequential bene ts.


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.5,00,000/- as lump sum compensation in lieu
of reinstatement and all other consequential bene ts 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 writ of this
order. 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 24/02/2026 18:09:20




                                                       Page 6 of 6