MANAGER SPENCERS RP SANJIV GOENKA GROUPversusDIWAN UVESH AYUBSHA

     C/SCA/14912/2024                               ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14912 of 2024

==========================================================
            MANAGER SPENCERS RP SANJIV GOENKA GROUP
                             Versus
                      DIWAN UVESH AYUBSHA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NILESH M SHAH(780) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JIGAR L PATEL(11596) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                               Date : 02/02/2026

                                ORAL ORDER


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


       “(A) To issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other writ or writs or
       orders or directions.

       (B) To quash and/or set aside impugned Award, dt.21-06-2024
       passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara in Ref. (LCV) No.413/2016.

       (C) During the pendency of this petition, by way of interim order to
       grant stay order against implementation and/or execution of
       impugned Award dt.21-06-2024 passed by the Labour Court,
       Vadodara in Ref.(LCV) No.413/2016.

       (D) To grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deems 昀椀t
       in the interest of justice.

       (E) To allow this petition with costs.”



                                     Page 1 of 7
     C/SCA/14912/2024                          ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026




2.     Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
respondent was working as a customer service associate (CSA) in
the petitioner company from 08.05.2014 in FMCG (fast moving
consumer goods) department. On 20.12.2015, the respondent
was orally terminated from the services by the petitioner for
which the respondent had also 昀椀led a police complaint.
Thereafter, the respondent had raised dispute being Ref. (LCV)
No.413/16 whereby the Labour Court vide award dated
26.11.2019 directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent
with continuity of service and 30% back wages. That, the
petitioner had 昀椀led Misc. Application to set aside ex-party award
and to restore the reference case with delay application where
the said delay application came to be allowed. Thereafter, the
restoration application was also allowed on 13.12.2022 on the
condition to pay costs of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent, which
was paid on 13.01.2023. The Labour Court, Vadodara vide award
dated 21.06.2024 partly allowed the reference directing the
petitioner to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service
and 20% back wages.


3.     Being aggrieved and dissatis昀椀ed with the impugned award
dated 21.06.2024 passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner has
preferred the present petition.


4.     Heard Mr. Nilesh M Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Jigar L Patel, learned counsel for the respondent.


5.     Learned counsel Mr. Shah has submitted that the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is
illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and

                               Page 2 of 7
     C/SCA/14912/2024                         ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026




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 in coming to the conclusion that the
respondent had completed 240 days continuous service even
though no documentary evidence had been produced to the
support the said claim. He has submitted that the Labour court
had not considered the fact that the respondent himself had
abandoned his job. He has submitted that the Labour Court had
erred in relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Gujarat High
Court in the cases of Minaxiben Laxmanbhai Paraliya Vs. State of
Gujarat, Dineshbhai Dhudabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and the
judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of
Hemant Babruvahan Parchake Vs. The Social Welfare O昀케cer,
Nagpur as the aforesaid judgments were not applicable to the
present case. He has submitted that the Labour Court has erred
in not considering the fact that the respondent had admitted in
his cross examination that after termination, he had not made
any e昀昀ort to get employed and therefore, the principle of no
work no pay is applicable to the present case. Over and above
the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel
Mr. Shah has urged that the impugned judgment and 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, learned counsel Mr. Patel, appearing for
the respondent, has opposed the present petition and submitted
that there is no any in昀椀rmity or any illegality in the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Labour Court and therefore,
no interference is required to be called for in the present
petition. He has submitted that the impugned judgment and

                             Page 3 of 7
     C/SCA/14912/2024                          ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026




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 con昀椀rmed
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
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. 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 where it has been held that in all the case where the
termination is found illegal, the order of reinstatement cannot be
passed automatically and 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
compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- is awarded.

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


                              Page 4 of 7
     C/SCA/14912/2024                                    ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026




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昀昀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:

                                                                   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



                                     Page 5 of 7
      C/SCA/14912/2024                                ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026




        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昀昀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 and considering the fact that the
respondent had only worked for about 18 months and was
relieved from work and he has been out of work for more than 10
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.1,50,000/- as full and 昀椀nal settlement to the respondent,
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 modi昀椀ed
accordingly. An amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as lump sum
compensation shall be paid to the respondent by the petitioner

                                   Page 6 of 7
      C/SCA/14912/2024                                                    ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026




after proper veri昀椀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. 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 05/02/2026 16:59:14




                                                Page 7 of 7