GONDAL NAGARPALIKA THROUGH CHIEF OFFICER HITESHKUMAR KANTILAL PATELversusVIJAYSINH JIVUBHA JADEJA

     C/SCA/15514/2020                          JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15514 of 2020
                               With
          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15603 of 2020

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

==========================================
        Approved for Reporting               Yes  No
                                                  No
==========================================
  GONDAL NAGARPALIKA THROUGH CHIEF OFFICER HITESHKUMAR
                          KANTILAL PATEL
                               Versus
               VIJAYKUMAR MADHUBHAI PADHIYAR
==========================================
Appearance:
MR YATIN SONI(868) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RAMNANDAN SINGH(1126) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                           Date : 23/02/2026

                        COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

1.       Since common issue involved in the captioned writ petitions,
the same are heard analogously and are being decided               by this
common judgment.


2.       Present petitions are 8led by the petitioner – Gondal
Negarpalika under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947



                                Page 1 of 7
     C/SCA/15514/2020                              JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




(hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) challenging the judgment and
award passed by the learned Presiding O@cer, Labour Court, Rajkot
(hereinafter be referred to as “the Labour Court”) in Reference (LCR)
Nos. 76 of 2011 & 77 of 2011 respectively, whereby, the learned
Judge has partly allowed the Reference 8led by the respective
respondents and directed the petitioner - Nagarpalika to reinstate the
workman with 20% backwages and continuity of service and also
directed to pay sum of Rs.2,500/- each as expenses to the
respondent-workmen.

3.       Brief facts of the case of the petitions are that the respondent –
workmen were working, continuously with the petitioner as Valveman
and drawing salary of Rs.1200/- per month w.e.f. 1994 to 12.01.2000.
It is contended that on 12.12.2000, the workman was terminated from
the services without issuing notice or paying notice pay and,
thereafter, though dispute was not resolved, the same was referred to
the Labour Court by way of reference. The workmen have averred
that the petitioner has committed breach of Section 25(F), (H) and (G)
of the Industrial Disputes Act and also averred that the workmen had
worked for more than 240 days. It is also contended that the
petitioner has 8led written statement at Exhibit 10 inter alia
contending that the workmen were not permanent employees of the
petitioner and their appointments were not made by following due
procedure of law. The workmen 8led applications for condonation of
delay, which came to be allowed by the Labour Court without hearing
the petitioner as the workman preferred References after 11 years
from their termination. The Labour Court allowed the reference and
directed the petitioner to reinstate the workmen with 20% back
wages.




                                  Page 2 of 7
     C/SCA/15514/2020                           JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




4.       Being aggrieved and dissatis8ed with the impugned award
passed by the learned Presiding O@cer, Labour Court, Rajkot in the
aforesaid References, the petitioner has preferred these petitions.

5.       Heard Mr. Yatin Soni, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner - Nagarpalika and Mr. Ramnandan Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-workmen.

6.        Learned counsel Mr. Soni has submitted that the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is illegal, unjust,
arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and 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 failed to
appreciate the fact that the respondent-workmen were daily rated
employees and they had not completed 240 days continuous service
and therefore, on that ground, the impugned award is required to be
quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the Labour Court has
erred in not taking the cognizance of the settled legal position where
the dispute was raised after the long gap of 11 years, then only on the
ground of delay and laches, that Reference was required to be
rejected, and no further adjudication was required to be made by the
Labour Court, where there was unexplained delay of 11 long years. He
has further submitted that the Labour Court ought to have held that
there was unexplained delay of 11 long years for raising an industrial
dispute of reinstatement wherein termination made in the year 2000,
that was challenged in the year 2011, that itself shows that the
employees had abandoned their claim for challenging the termination
and the same is required to be rejected only on that ground. Over and
above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel
Mr. Soni has urged that the respective impugned award is required to



                               Page 3 of 7
     C/SCA/15514/2020                            JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




be quashed and set aside and the present petitions are required to be
allowed.

7.       As against that, learned counsel Mr. Ramnandan Singh,
appearing for the respondent-workmen, has opposed the present
petition and submitted that there is no any in8rmity 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. Learned counsel Mr. Singh has referred and relied upon the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 908 of 2023 and other allied matters, more particularly the
observations made in paras-7, 10 and 11 and urged that appropriate
orders be passed.

8.       I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also gone
through the impugned awards passed by the Labour Court.
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, on the other hand, the Labour Court has awarded the
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



                                 Page 4 of 7
   C/SCA/15514/2020                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




more particularly paras – 5 and 6, this Court is of the opinion that
interest of justice would be subserved, if lump sump compensation is
awarded in favour of the workman.

8.1    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 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 sum
         Sr.No.
                               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




                                        Page 5 of 7
     C/SCA/15514/2020                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




8.2      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 Appeals stand dismissed as
          no ground is made out to interfere with the order of the learned
          Single Judge.”


9.       Now, considering the materials placed on record and the
peculiar facts of this case and considering the fact that though this
Court while admitting the petitions had passed an order to comply
with the provisions of Section 17B of the Act but, since the petitioner-
Nagarpalika had never complied with that order, this Court is of the
opinion that considering the tenure of 7 years’ service, it will be in the


                                      Page 6 of 7
        C/SCA/15514/2020                                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




  8tness of things if, the award passed by the Labour Court is suitably
  modi8ed in light of the aforestated position of Law by granting
  lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- each towards full and 8nal
  settlement of all the dues of the employees.


  10.        In view of above, all the petitions are partly allowed. The
  impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Presiding
  O@cer, Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) Nos. 76 of 2011 and
  77 of 2011 respectively are hereby modi8ed accordingly. An amount
  of Rs. 3,00,000/- as lump sum compensation shall be paid to EACH of
  the respondent-workmen by the petitioner - Nagarpalika, after proper
  veri8cation of the identity and bank details through RTGS/NEFT, 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.

                                                                       (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 24/02/2026 16:01:12




                                                           Page 7 of 7