MAHENDRASINH PRABHATSINH GOHIL SINCE DECD THROUGH LH MINABEN WD/O MAHENDRAISNH GOHILversusDISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER

   C/SCA/15377/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15377 of 2025


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-

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

           Approved for Reporting               Yes          No
                                                             No
==========================================================
  MAHENDRASINH PRABHATSINH GOHIL SINCE DECD THROUGH LH
           MINABEN WD/O MAHENDRAISNH GOHIL
                         Versus
             DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE FOR NIDHI K TRIVEDI(9003) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PRADIP J PATEL(5896) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                            Date : 03/03/2026

                              JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Pradip J. Patel learned
counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of
respondents.

2. Present petition is    led by the petitioner under Articles 14,
21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions
of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act challenging the
impugned award dated 30.3.2024 in Reference (T) No. 90 of
2004 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra, whereby the
Labour Court has partly allowed the reference and granted

                                Page 1 of 7
   C/SCA/15377/2025                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- in favour of
the legal heirs of the deceased workman.


3. Facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner
came to be appointed as Rojamdar Driver in the o7ice of the
respondent from 11.6.1998 and the husband of the petitioner
has served for more than 240 days with the respondent. After
more than 6 years of service, by oral order dated 15.2.2003,
the husband of the petitioner came to be terminated from
service on the ground that the husband of the petitioner
raised a demand for grant of bene ts of Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

3.1 Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner had approached
Commissioner of Labour who referred the dispute to Labour
Court,     Godhra     for   adjudication       on   merits.     During       the
pendency of reference the husband of the petitioner expired
and therefore, legal heirs i.e. widow of the deceased was
joined as party in the proceedings. After hearing both the
sides, the Labour Court vide order dated 30.3.2024 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. Dipak Dave, learned counsel for Ms. Nidhi K. Trivedi,
learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same


                                 Page 2 of 7
  C/SCA/15377/2025                         JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has
submitted that the award passed by the 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 passed the award against the express
provisions of law, evidence on record and principles of natural
justice. He has submitted that without any basis, the labour
Court has awarded meager compensation to the tune of
Rs.50,000/- despite clear-cut unfair labour practice on part of
the respondent and in spite of clear-cut violation of Section
25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has submitted
that the labour Court has failed to appreciate that the
husband of the petitioner is required to be granted bene t of
continuity of service and on the said basis, until the date of
death, he was required to be granted back wages and after
the date of his death, at least, pensionary bene ts ought to
have been granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner urges before the Court that present petition may be
allowed.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the
respondents has objected the petition and submitted that the
Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the
impugned judgment. He 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. He 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



                             Page 3 of 7
  C/SCA/15377/2025                               JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




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
lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. 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 by the labour Court in favour of the widow of the
deceased 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


                                 Page 4 of 7
  C/SCA/15377/2025                               JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




       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
       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


                                 Page 5 of 7
  C/SCA/15377/2025                               JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




       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 other relief, it would be just and
proper to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the
legal heir i.e. widow of the deceased workman in lieu of 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 is
modi ed accordingly. An amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as lump sum
compensation in lieu of all other consequential bene ts shall
be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased i.e. widow of 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.
If the amount of Rs.50,000/- 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

                                Page 6 of 7
     C/SCA/15377/2025                                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026




is not paid then the lump sum amount which is awarded by
this Court shall be paid to the widow of the deceased. 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 05/03/2026 17:55:01




                                                        Page 7 of 7