STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH RANGE FOREST OFFICERversusSHRI ISHWARBHAI MULABHAI PAWAR

     C/SCA/17094/2025                             JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17094 of 2025


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

==========================================
        Approved for Reporting            Yes       No
                                                    No
==========================================
       STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH RANGE FOREST OFFICER
                              Versus
               SHRI ISHWARBHAI MULABHAI PAWAR
==========================================
Appearance:
MS AGNEYA MANKAD 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 : 24/02/2026

                             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. 39 of 2016 passed by the Labour Court, Valsad,
whereby the Labour Court has awarded reinstatement with continuity



                                  Page 1 of 6
     C/SCA/17094/2025                            JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026




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.       Ms.Mankad, 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. She 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. She 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
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


                                  Page 2 of 6
     C/SCA/17094/2025                             JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026




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 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


                                 Page 3 of 6
     C/SCA/17094/2025                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026




          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:

                                                      Amount of lump
                        Total no. of years for lump
          Sr.No.                                           sum
                           sum 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


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


                                       Page 4 of 6
   C/SCA/17094/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026




        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


                                Page 5 of 6
       C/SCA/17094/2025                                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026




 workman in lieu of reinstatement and all other consequential bene:ts
 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. 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 16:01:40




                                                          Page 6 of 6