RAMABHAI RUPABHAI DAMORversusDEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

     C/SCA/15061/2020                               JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15061 of 2020


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

==========================================
        Approved for Reporting              Yes    No
                                             --    No
==========================================
                  RAMABHAI RUPABHAI DAMOR
                              Versus
              DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SWEETY SAMARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                             Date : 29/01/2026

                             ORAL JUDGMENT


1.       Rule returnable forthwith.       Present petition is filed by the
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 01.06.2019 passed by the Labour
Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 614 of 1999 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 01.06.1999

                                   Page 1 of 11
     C/SCA/15061/2020                              JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




          passed by Labour Court, Godhra, in Reference (T) No.614 of
          1999 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 until the
          date of his retirement and after the date of retirement,
          petitioner may be held entitled to all the retirement benefits
          including pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other
          retirement benefits treating petitioner'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
          since the petitioner has reached age of superannuation.
          (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.
Sweety Samara, 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


                                  Page 2 of 11
     C/SCA/15061/2020                            JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




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 petitioner
reached to the age of superannuation or nearer to the superannuation
age, 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.


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.


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. Samara, learned Assistant Government Pleader

                                 Page 3 of 11
     C/SCA/15061/2020                           JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




for the respondent has strongly opposed and objected present
petition 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 that the award being
just and proper may not be interfered with.


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

                                 Page 4 of 11
   C/SCA/15061/2020                              JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




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


8. Similarly situated workman 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


                                Page 5 of 11
   C/SCA/15061/2020                            JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




        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 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,


                               Page 6 of 11
   C/SCA/15061/2020                                JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




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 confirmedthe order passed by
the learned Single Judge and observed paragraph No. 13 as under:-



                                 Page 7 of 11
   C/SCA/15061/2020                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




          "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 10 as under:


                                   Page 8 of 11
C/SCA/15061/2020                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




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


                               Page 9 of 11
   C/SCA/15061/2020                             JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




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 R.M. Yellatti v. Assi. Executive Engineer (2006 SSC (L&S) 1)
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 19 years of service from July 1977 to
March, 1996, 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 01.06.2019
passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 614 of 1999
is hereby modified and the respondent is hereby directed to consider
the service of the petitioner, as continuous on the same line and treat
the petitioner as workman in service till he reached the age of
superannuation and pay all the retiral consequential benefits, as
directed by two co-ordinate bench of this Court and upheld by the
Hon'ble Division Bench.


17.    All the consequential reliefs and retiral benefits, as granted 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


                               Page 10 of 11
      C/SCA/15061/2020                                                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




 Patent Appeal No. 389 of 2024, shall be paid to the present petitioner
 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)
 V.R. PANCHAL


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 03/02/2026 11:19:18




                                                        Page 11 of 11