THE STATE OF GUJARATversusPRAVINBHAI GENABHAI BARAS

   C/SCA/16354/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16354 of 2025


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-

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

           Approved for Reporting               Yes          No
                                                             No
==========================================================
                        THE STATE OF GUJARAT
                                Versus
                      PRAVINBHAI GENABHAI BARAS
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MRUNAL DHOLARIA AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JIGNESH D LAMBA(12891) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                            Date : 17/02/2026

                           ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate Mr. Pandya,
waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. Present petition is    led by the petitioner under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions of
Industrial Disputes Act challenging the impugned award
dated 7.10.2023 in Reference (LCV) No. 40 of 2016 passed by
the Labour Court, Valsad, whereby the Labour Court has



                                Page 1 of 6
  C/SCA/16354/2025                         JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




awarded reinstatement with continuity of service with 50%
backwages.


3. Facts of the case are that the respondent was working, as a
Watchman with the petitioner for 4 years and drawing
monthly salary of Rs.5,897/-. On 1.7.2015. The respondent
was orally and arbitrarily discharged from service by the
petitioner without following due procedure. Being aggrieved
with the said termination, the workman raised an industrial
dispute before the Labour Court, and the Labour Court, vide
order dated 7.10.2023 awarded the aforementioned relief.


3.1 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. Dholaria, learned AGP for the petitioner has submitted
the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and
has submitted that the impugned order passed by the labour
Court is wholly erroneous, bad in law and contrary to the facts
and records of the case. He has submitted that the respondent
had not worked for 240 days at any point of time and
therefore, there is no violation of provision of Industrial
Disputes Act. He has submitted that the labour Court has
passed the impugned order without application of mind and
therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and
present petition deserves to be allowed.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Pandya, learned counsel for the


                            Page 2 of 6
   C/SCA/16354/2025                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




respondent has objected the petition and submitted that the
Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the
impugned order. 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.


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
aforesaid 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 more particularly paras – 5 and 6, this Court is
of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved, if
lump sum compensation is awarded in favour of the workman
in lieu of reinstatement and all other consequential bene ts.


8. The relevant para – 10 of the oral order dated 18.04.2024
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent



                                   Page 3 of 6
  C/SCA/16354/2025                               JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




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
       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


                                 Page 4 of 6
   C/SCA/16354/2025                                JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




        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.”


10.    Now, considering the materials placed on record and the
peculiar facts of this case and in view of the aforesaid
decisions as well as the length of service of the respondent
with the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that it would
be just and proper to pay lump sum compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- to the workman, which will serve the ends of
justice.


11. In view of the above, present petition is partly allowed.
The impugned award passed by the Labour Court is hereby
quashed and set aside and the award is modi ed accordingly.
An amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as lump sum compensation shall
be paid to the workman in lieu of reinstatement and all other
consequential         bene ts   by    the      employer     after      proper



                                 Page 5 of 6
    C/SCA/16354/2025                                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




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. 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 21/02/2026 13:07:27




                                                        Page 6 of 6