Holding

The High Court confirmed the Labour Court’s award of reinstatement with continuity of service, denied any back‑wages, and dismissed the State’s petition.

Summary

Udabhai Surthabhai Pateliya, a workman in the Gujarat irrigation department, challenged an award dated 05‑01‑2022 (later referred to as 13‑05‑2022) passed by the Labour Court, Godhra, seeking reinstatement with continuity of service but no back wages. The petition was filed under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while the State filed a parallel petition. The High Court examined extensive prior jurisprudence where coordinate benches had consistently ordered reinstatement with continuity and denied back wages where the employer failed to produce muster‑rolls, invoking adverse inference under Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the ID Act. Relying on decisions such as Chhatrasing Marutising Bariya v. Dy. Executive Engineer, R.M. Yellatti v. Assi. Executive Engineer and Director, Fisheries Terminal Division (AIR 2010 SC 1236), the Court confirmed the award of reinstatement, directed the respondent to reinstate the employee within three months, and dismissed the State’s petition. Both petitions were consequently disposed of.

Issues considered

The award of reinstatement with continuity of service should be set aside or confirmed.
Whether the employee is entitled to back wages in addition to reinstatement.
Whether the employer's failure to produce muster‑rolls warrants adverse inference and affects the award.
The appropriate relief for the State’s parallel petition.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 21, s. Article 226, s. Article 227
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 25B, s. 25F, s. 25G, s. 25H

Subjects

reinstatementcontinuity of serviceindustrial disputesback wagesadverse inferenceLabour Court awardGujarat High Court

Judgment

C/SCA/2010/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2010 of 2023

With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 24210 of 2022

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No

================================================================
UDABHAI SURTHABHAI PATELIYA
Versus
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MRUNAL DHOLARIA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK

Date : 20/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Present petitions are ﬁled by the
employer as well as 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
05.01.2022 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference
(T)No. 146 of 2013 with below mentioned relief/ in SCA/2010/2023:-

“(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 dated 05.01.2022 passed by
Labour Court, Godhra, in Reference (T) No.146 of 2013 qua not

Page 1 of 11
C/SCA/2010/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026

allowing the Reference of the petitioner in full and further may be
pleased to direct the respondents to grant reinstatement with continuity
in service and bcakwages;

(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 along with continuity:

(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. The same Award has been challenged by the state in
SCA/24210/2022.

3. Heard Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned Counsel for the employee
and Mr. Mrunal Dholaria, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
the Employer State.

4. 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. Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that though the Labour Court has
rightly observed that the respondent has not produced any
documents and considering the Law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme court and in case of similar matters granted reinstatement
without backwages. It is submitted that though continuity is not
mentioned the same has to be considered as implied as per the
settled law. It is submitted that in the similar cases of very

Page 2 of 11
C/SCA/2010/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026

department at very canal division in SCA/2205/2023, 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. In the present case the labour court
has rightly passed the order of reinstatement however the labour
court ought to have granted back wages.

5. 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 modi ed in line of the
observations made in the said decisions.

6. 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 con rmed 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
petition also. Mr. Dave has also relied upon the decision in
SCA/2205/2023 vide oral order dated 30.08.2024 as con rmed in
LPA/855/2025 by order dated 07.08.2025.

Page 3 of 11
fi
fi
fi
C/SCA/2010/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026

7. Per contra, Mr. Mrunal Dholaria, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the respondent has strongly opposed
and objected present petition and also contended that the petition
led by state be allowed. It is 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
therefore, Labour Court ought not to have passed order of
reinstatement. It is urged that the Award passed by Labour court is
contrary to the documents on record and therefore the same may be
set aside. Learned AGP has referred to and rely upon grounds
mentioned in memo of petition led by state and urged to allow the
petition of state and to dismiss the petition of employee. The Learned
AGP is not in a position to dispute that judgment rendered in
SCA/2205/2023 as con rmed in LPA/855/2025 is applicable to the
facts of present case.

8. 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.

9. It appears that the issue involved in present petition has
already been decided by two di=erent coordinate benches of
this Court wherein services of similarly situated workmen, who
were working in the same irrigation department 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
fi
fi
Page 4 of 11
fi
C/SCA/2010/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026

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.

10. The said petition came to be allowed with the direction
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. In case of employees
who had not reached superannuation age have been directed to be
reinstated in service with continuity of service.

11. It is not in dispute that in case of Jawanbhai Malabhai Pagi,
SCA/2205/2023 which is of bhadar canal sub division, lunawada i.e
Very respondent, in case of similarly situated employee, this court
has modi ed 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 bene ts.

12. Similarly situated workman has ﬁled present petition and
therefore, similar order is required to be passed in the facts of the
present petition also.

13. 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.

Page 5 of 11
fi
fi
C/SCA/2010/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026

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 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 backwages 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."

14. It is also required to be noted herein that the Hon'ble Division
Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 389 of 2024 has con rmed 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 : -

Page 6 of 11
fi
C/SCA/2010/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026

“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
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
con rmed 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 modi ed.”

12. We are in complete agreement with the ndings 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 justi ed in holding the termination in violation of
Section 25G and H of the I.D. Act."

15. Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has rejected the Letters
Patent Appeal ﬁled by the State and con rmed 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."

16. Therefore, the orders passed by the two di=erent
fi
Page 7 of 11
fi
fi
fi
fi
C/SCA/2010/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026

coordinate benches of this Court are now con rmed 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
the two di=erent coordinate bench of this Court and con rmed by
Division Bench of this Court.

17. 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.

18. 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 con rmed 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
fi
fi
Page 8 of 11
fi
C/SCA/2010/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026

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.

5. These ndings 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 ndings 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.
fi
Page 9 of 11
fi
C/SCA/2010/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026

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
stands DISPOSED OF.”

19. In the present case Labour court has rightly considered
evidence on record and relying upon judgment of Hon’ble supreme
court in case of Director, Fisheries Terminal Division, AIR 2010 SC
1236, 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 modi ed in SCA/2205/2023
and con rmed in LPA/855/2025. In the present case thus looking to 26
years of service from 1985 to 2011, it cannot be said that the Labour
court has committed any error in granting reinstatement. Since in the
similar cases reinstatement with continuity of service however
without backwages have been granted, the same order is required to
be passed.

20. In view of the above observations and keeping in mind the
observations made by the two di=erent Coordinate Benches of this
Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 22362 of 2019 and 4168 of 2022
with 4189 of 2022 and con rmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 389 of 2024, the petition of
employee is hereby allowed. The impugned award dated 13.05.2022
passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference (T) No. 146 of 2013
is hereby con rmed so far as reinstatement is concerned and the
respondent is hereby directed to reinstate the employee petitioner in
SCA/2010/2023 with continuity of service however without back wages
in the same line as directed by this court and division bench in the
fi
fi
Page 10 of 11
fi
fi
C/SCA/2010/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026

matters referred herein above. Accordingly, the petition of state is
required to be rejected.

21. Thus the Award of reinstatement is con rmed with the further
direction to reinstate the concerned employee with continuity of
service. The employee shall be reinstated as directed above within
period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of writ of
this order.

22. Accordingly, both the petitions stand disposed of. Rule is made
absolute to the above extent.

Direct service is permitted.

(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 24/02/2026 15:19:44
fi
Page 11 of 11