MUMTAJBEN W/O SHAIYADALIBHAI KADRIversusASSISTANT DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE

     C/SCA/5850/2023                               JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5850 of 2023
                                  With
              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17221 of 2023

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================

            Approved for Reporting                Yes          No

================================================================
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
                                 Versus
              MANTRI SHRI, CENTER OF TRADES UNION & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS SWEETY SAMARA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HANNAN A QURESHI(11351) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                              Date : 22/01/2026

                              ORAL JUDGMENT
ORDER IN SCA/5850/2023


1.      Present petition is    led by the petitioner – State of Gujarat
under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the
judgment and award dated 08.03.2022 passed by the Industrial Court,
Rajkot (hereinafter be referred to as “the Labour Court”) in Reference
(I.T.) No. 52 of 2017, whereby, the learned Judge has partly allowed
the Reference          led by the respondent-Union and directed the
petitioner to pay the heirs of the respondent bene ts as prescribed
under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and also directed
to pay di7erential amount of arrears from 21.01.2013 to 31.12.2016.


                                  Page 1 of 7
     C/SCA/5850/2023                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




2.      Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
respondent namely, Shri Saiyadali Husainmiya was working with the
petitioner as part-time "safai kamdar" since 1983 and he was not paid
bene ts like Dearness Allowance, LTC and other allowances. That, the
respondent-workman preferred Reference being Reference (LCJ) No.
208 of 2003 before the learned Labour Court, Junagadh, wherein the
learned Labour Court, Junagadh vide Order dated 08.06.2012 had
directed to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman in
service, with continuity of service, with 20% of back-wages and cost
of Rs.1000/-. Against which, the petitioner preferred Special Civil
Application No. 11375 of 2012 before this Court, wherein, this Court
vide Order dated 20.03.2013 partly allowed the petition and modi ed
the order and extent that, respondent-workman should be reinstated
in service with continuity of service but without any back-wages. That,
as per the directions of this Court, the respondent-workman was
reinstated in service with continuity of service, without any back-
wages. That, the respondent-workman was reinstated in view of the
Order of this Court in the year 2013 and therefore, he worked from
21.01.2013 to 31.12.2016 as part-timer as water barer. That
thereafter, on 31.12.2016, upon attaining age of superannuation the
respondent-workman retired. That, as per the respondent-workman,
the bene ts of Second and Fourth Saturday as well as bene ts of
Leave Encashment at the time of retirement were not extended and
therefore, he          led aforesaid Reference Application before Industrial
Tribunal being Reference (I.T.) No. 52 of 2017. That, the petitioner
 led written statement before the Industrial Tribunal, Junagadh
opposing claim statement. That, the Industrial Court, Rajkot after
hearing both the sides partly allowed the Reference Application Vide
Judgment dated 08.03.2022 and directed the petitioner to release


                                      Page 2 of 7
      C/SCA/5850/2023                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




bene ts calculating service of respondent-workman as 8 hours per
day, instead of 3 hours per day within 30 days of passing of the
Judgment. That, when respondent-workman was reinstated on
21.01.2013, he was reinstated for 3 hours only and he had accepted
the same.


3.       Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned award
dated 08.03.2022 passed by the Industrial Court, Rajkot in Reference
(I.T.) No. 52 of 2017, the petitioner has preferred this petition under
Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions
of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.


4.       Heard Ms. Sweety Samara, learned Assistant Government
Pleader, appearing for the petitioner – State and Mr. Hannan Qureshi,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5.


5.       Learned AGP Ms. Samara 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. She has submitted that as per the Government
Resolution dated 01.04.2001, all the Class-IV posts are to be lled up
by out-sourcing and now there is no permanent post available and
therefore, the order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court is
erroneous and without proper application of mind. She has submitted
that the Labour Court has not considered the fact that the petitioners
are     running         special   institutions    which   are   funded      by    State
Government on grant and therefore, there is limited budget available
with the petitioners. She has submitted that the respondent-workman
had failed to establish before the Labour Court that his appointment


                                         Page 3 of 7
     C/SCA/5850/2023                            JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




was regular or that he had given more than ve years’ of continuous
service and therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court is
erroneous, illegal and unjust. Over and above the grounds agitated in
the memo of petition, learned AGP Ms. Samara has urged that the
impugned award is required to be quashed and set aside and the
present petition is required to be allowed. At the outset, learned AGP
Ms. Samara has submitted that upto 2013, the petitioner has paid the
amount to the original workman.


6.      As against that, learned counsel Mr. Qureshi, appearing for the
respondents, has opposed the present petition and submitted that
there is no any in rmity 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.
Qureshi 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.


7.      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 judgment and award passed by the Labour
Court. 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 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


                                Page 4 of 7
      C/SCA/5850/2023                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




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 sump compensation is awarded in favour of the workman.

7.1      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:

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



                                          Page 5 of 7
      C/SCA/5850/2023                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




                             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


7.2      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.”


8.       Now, considering the materials placed on record and the
peculiar facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that considering


                                       Page 6 of 7
         C/SCA/5850/2023                                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




 the tenure of 3 years’ service, illegal appointment, etc., it will be in
 the        tness of things if, the award passed by the Labour Court is
 suitably modi ed in light of the aforestated position of Law by
 granting lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards full and
   nal settlement of all the dues of the employee.


 9.         In view of above, present petition is partly allowed. The
 impugned judgment and award dated 08.03.2022 passed by the
 Industrial Court, Rajkot in Reference (I.T.) No. 52 of 2017 is hereby
 modi ed accordingly. An amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as lump sum
 compensation shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased
 respondent-workman by the petitioner, after proper veri cation 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. The amount
 of Rs. 3,00,000/- shall be disbursed in equal proportion amongst the
 legal heirs of the deceased respondent-workman. Rule is made
 absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.


                                     ORDER IN SCA/17221/2023


 1.         This is a cross petition                  led by the legal heirs of the original
 workman challenging the very same judgment and award dated
 08.03.2022 passed by the Industrial Court, Rajkot in Reference (I.T.)
 No. 52 of 2017.

 2.         Since the petition led by the State of Gujarat is partly allowed
 as aforesaid, no order is required to be passed in the present petition
 and the same is disposed of.

                                                                     (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
 Dolly

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: DOLLYBEN CHETANBHAI VADUKAR(HC01392), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/01/2026 16:57:28

                                                     Page 7 of 7