Holding

The award of lump‑sum compensation is erroneous; the workman must be treated as continuously in service until superannuation and be reinstated with retirement benefits.

Summary

Ranchhodbhai Lakhabhai Bariya, a workman in the Gujarat irrigation department, challenged a Labour Court award dated 07‑06‑2019 that granted him a lump‑sum compensation instead of reinstatement after his termination. He filed a petition under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and retirement benefits. The High Court examined earlier coordinate bench decisions (Special Civil Applications 22362/2019, 4168/2022, 4189/2022, 2205/2023) that had modified similar awards to order reinstatement and treat service as continuous until superannuation. Relying on those precedents and the Supreme Court’s ruling in R.M. Yellatti, the Court held that the Labour Court erred in granting compensation and violated Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, the award was modified, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner’s service continuous up to superannuation and to pay all retirement benefits within three months. The petition was allowed and the matter disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the Labour Court award granting lump‑sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement violates Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and retirement benefits despite having reached superannuation age.
Whether the High Court must follow the ratio of earlier coordinate‑bench judgments in similar cases.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 25B, s. 25F, s. 25G, s. 25H

Subjects

reinstatementindustrial disputesservice continuitysuperannuationlump sum compensationconstitutional rightslabour court awardGujarat High Court

Judgment

C/SCA/15587/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15587 of 2020

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
-- No
==========================================
RANCHHODBHAI LAKHABHAI BARIYA
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 07.06.2019 passed by the
Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 621 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

Page 1 of 11
C/SCA/15587/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026

dated 07.06.2019 passed by Labour Court, Godhra, in
Reference (T) No.621 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 of
service and pay full back wages and all consequential
beneﬁts to the petitioner;

(B) Pending the admission, hearing and ﬁnal disposal of this
petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct
respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service.

(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 the impugned award the Labour Court has
committed serious error and therefore, the impugned award

Page 2 of 11
C/SCA/15587/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026

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.1,70,000/- which is bad in law and not in consonance with
the settled legal principle. Mr. Dave has submitted that during the
pendency of this petition, the petitioner has reached superannuation
age and therefore necessary directions may be issued by molding
reliefs as has been done in case of similarly situated employees.

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

Page 3 of 11
C/SCA/15587/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026

petition also.

4. Per contra, Ms. Samara, learned Assistant Government
Pleader 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

Page 4 of 11
C/SCA/15587/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026

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 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

Page 5 of 11
C/SCA/15587/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026

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 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, the workman had completed 240
days. At mark 17/1, the deposition of the employer’s witness

Page 6 of 11
C/SCA/15587/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026

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

"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

Page 7 of 11
C/SCA/15587/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026

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:

“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.

Page 8 of 11
C/SCA/15587/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026

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

Page 9 of 11
C/SCA/15587/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026

stands DISPOSED OF.”

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 16 years of service from March 1980
to March, 1996, the labour court erred in granting compensation.
Since, the petitioner has now reached superannuation age, similar
relief is required to be given to the petitioner.

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 07.06.2019 passed by the Labour
Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 621 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.

Page 10 of 11
C/SCA/15587/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026

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 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 11:20:12

Page 11 of 11