THE PADRA MUNICIPALITYversusLILABEN PARSHOTTAMBHAI SOLANKI

     C/SCA/4947/2020                              JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4947 of 2020

                                  With
               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4949 of 2020

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

            Approved for Reporting               Yes          No

================================================================
                         THE PADRA MUNICIPALITY
                                 Versus
                 LILABEN PARSHOTTAMBHAI SOLANKI & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ABHIJIT RATHOD FOR MS NILAM N CHAUHAN(6635) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS ROSHNI PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                             Date : 21/01/2026

                        COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT


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


2.      Present petitions are filed by the petitioner – Padra Municipality
under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred
to as “the Act”) challenging the order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the
learned Presiding OfÏcer, Labour Court, Vadodara (hereinafter be


                                 Page 1 of 7
     C/SCA/4947/2020                             JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026




referred to as “the Labour Court”) in Reference (LCV) Nos. 302 of
2008 & 299 of 2008 respectively, whereby, the learned Judge has
partly allowed the Reference filed by the respective respondents and
directed the petitioner-Municipality to reinstate the respondent-
workmen at their original post with continuity of service and 25%
backwages and also awarded Rs.2,500/- towards cost of the
reference.


3.      Brief facts leading to the present petitions are that, considering
the quantum of work and requirement of additional men power the
petitioner-Municipality engaged the respondent-workmen as causal
labourer on daily wage basis and assigned the work of drainage
sweeper in sanitary department. That, neither the due procedure of
law was followed in engaging the respondent-workmen as Rojamdar
nor the respondent-workmen were engaged on vacant post of
sanctioned establishment of the Municipality. That, the respondent-
workmen had worked as casual labourer on daily wage basis
intermittently when required. It is the case of the petitioner that, after
01.01.2008, the respondent-workmen were not engaged for the work
as there was no requirement of additional manpower for the work and
such non-engagement in service was treated as illegal termination by
employer and the respondent-workmen had filed complaint before the
Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vadodara ('the ACL' for short).
That, the ACL vide order dated 29.05.2008 treated the same as
Industrial Dispute and referred the dispute to the Labour Court,
Vadodara for adjudication. That, the respondent-workmen had filed
statement of claim before the Labour Court alleging the violation of
provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. That, the petitioner-
Municipality filed the written statement denying the claims of the
respondent-workmen. After hearing all the concerned parties and


                                 Page 2 of 7
     C/SCA/4947/2020                           JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026




after examining the oral as well as documentary evidence produced
on record, the Labour Court passed the impugned judgment and
award dated 25.06.2019 as aforesaid.


4.      Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award
dated 25.06.2019 passed by the learned Presiding OfÏcer, Labour
Court, Vadodara in Reference (LCV) Nos. 302 of 2008 & 299 of 2008
respectively, the petitioner-Municipality has preferred this petition
under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.


5.      Heard Mr. Abhijit Rathod, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of Ms. Nilam Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner-Municipality
and Ms. Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader,
appearing for the respondent No.3 – Regional Commissioner of
Municipalities.
        Though served, none has remained present on behalf of the
respondent Nos.1 and 2.


6.       Learned counsel Mr. Rathod 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 not
appreciated the fact that the municipality is an autonomous body
constituted under the Gujarat Municipalities Act and is governed by
the Gujarat Municipalities Act and Rules made there under in respect
of the engagement of the employees and their service conditions and
therefore, the provisions of I.D. Act is not applicable to the workman
who was engaged by the Municipality and therefore also, the


                                Page 3 of 7
      C/SCA/4947/2020                              JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026




impugned award and order is liable to be set aside. He has submitted
that the Labour Court has committed a gross error in not appreciating
the      fact    fact   that   the   respondent-workmen     were      engaged
intermittently considering the quantum of work and requirement of
man-power and not against the sanctioned vacant post. He has
further submitted that the Labour Court has grossly erred in not
appreciating the fact that the respondent-workmen were not engaged
after following due procedure nor their names were invited through
employment exchange and in such circumstances, and more
particularly the respondents cannot claim reinstatement though there
was no work available with the Municipality. Over and above the
grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr. Rathod
has urged that the impugned award is required to be quashed and set
aside and the present petition is required to be allowed.


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
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


                                     Page 4 of 7
      C/SCA/4947/2020                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026




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 workmen.

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 effect 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/4947/2020                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026




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 different 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
the tenure of 7 years’ service, illegal appointment, no sanctioned set
up etc., it will be in the fitness of things if, the award passed by the
Labour Court is suitably modified in light of the aforestated position of
Law by granting lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards full



                                       Page 6 of 7
           C/SCA/4947/2020                                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026




   and final settlement of all the dues of the employees.


   9.         In view of above, both the petitions are partly allowed. The
   impugned judgment and award dated 25.06.2019 passed by the
   learned Presiding OfÏcer, Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference (LCV)
   Nos. 302 of 2008 & 299 of 2008 respectively are hereby modified
   accordingly. An amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as lump sum compensation
   shall be paid to EACH of the respondent-workmen by the petitioner-
   Municipality, after proper verification 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)

   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 16:55:01

                                                       Page 7 of 7