RANGE FOREST OFFICERversusLHS OF RAJUBHAI RAGHUBHAI DESHMUKH JIJABEN RAJUBHAI DESKHMUKH

     C/SCA/7229/2024                               JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7229 of 2024


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

            Approved for Reporting                Yes          No

================================================================
                     RANGE FOREST OFFICER
                             Versus
     LHS OF RAJUBHAI RAGHUBHAI DESHMUKH JIJABEN RAJUBHAI
                         DESKHMUKH
================================================================
Appearance:
MS ROSHNI PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1
MR K I KAZI(5030) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                              Date : 02/03/2026

                                JUDGMENT


1.      RULE returnable forthwith. Learned counsel Mr. K.I. Kazi,
waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent.


2.      Present petition is   led by the petitioner-State under Articles
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 judgment and award dated 03.12.2022 passed by the
learned Presiding O5cer, Labour Court, Valsad (hereinafter be
referred to as “the Labour Court”) in Reference (LCV) No. 196 of 2016,
whereby, the learned Judge has partly allowed the Reference led by



                                  Page 1 of 7
     C/SCA/7229/2024                                JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




the legal heirs of the deceased respondent-workman granting 25% in
lieu of reinstatement and consequential bene ts.


3.      Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
respondent-workman was working with the petitioner department as a
Watchman since last three years and drawing wages of Rs. 5,897/-
per month. It is alleged that, the services of the respondent-workman
came to be terminated orally on 01.06.2015 and therefore, the legal
heirs of the deceased respondent-workman              led claim statement
before the Labour Court, Valsad. That, the petitioner opposed the
reference by           ling a detailed Written Statement before the Labour
Court, Valsad. After hearing all the concerned parties and after
examining the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on
record, the Labour Court passed the impugned judgment and award
dated 03.12.2022 in Reference (LCV) No. 196 of 2016, whereby, the
learned Judge partly allowed the Reference as aforesaid.


4.      Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned judgment
and award dated 03.12.2022 passed by the learned Presiding O5cer,
Labour Court, Valsad in Reference (LCV) No. 196 of 2016, the
petitioner has preferred this petition.


5.      Heard Ms. Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader,
appearing for the petitioner-State and Mr. K.I. Kazi, learned counsel
appearing for the legal heirs of the deceased respondent-workman.


6.      Learned AGP Ms. Patel 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, the same is required to be


                                     Page 2 of 7
     C/SCA/7229/2024                             JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




quashed and set aside. She has submitted that the Labour Court has
not considered the fact that work was based on the grant issued by
the High Authority and there was no permanent work available and
the petitioner had also produced relevant documents showing grants
issued by the High Authority from the period of 2012-2015, however,
without considering the aforesaid aspect the Labour Court has
granted compensation to the respondent which is without application
of mind and without proper apprehension of evidence. She has further
submitted that the Labour Court has also not considered the fact that
there was no sanctioned post available and to support that contention
the Authority had produced documents showing sanctioned set-up of
the petitioner, however, the same was not considering by the Labour
Court while passing the impugned award. She has submitted that the
respondent-workman had not worked for 240 days in a given year and
therefore, there was no violation of provisions of Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947. She has submitted that it was the primary duty of the
respondent-workman before the Labour Court to prove that he had
worked for 240 days however, no such documents were produced
before the Labour Court and therefore, the impugned award passed
by the Labour Court is erroneous, illegal and unjust and without
proper application of mind. Over and above the grounds agitated in
the memo of appeal, learned AGP Ms. Patel has urged that the
impugned award is required to be quashed and set aside and the
present petition is required to be allowed.


7.      As against that, learned counsel Mr. K.I. Kazi, appearing for the
respondent, 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.


                                 Page 3 of 7
      C/SCA/7229/2024                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




Kazi 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.


8.       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
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.

8.1      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


                                      Page 4 of 7
      C/SCA/7229/2024                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




           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 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


8.2      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


                                          Page 5 of 7
      C/SCA/7229/2024                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




           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.”


9.       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 3 years’ service, illegal appointment, no sanctioned set-
up 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.2,00,000/- towards full
and nal settlement of all the dues of the employee.


10.      In view of above, present petition is partly allowed. The
impugned judgment and award dated 03.12.2022 passed by the
learned Presiding O5cer, Labour Court, Valsad in Reference (LCV) No.
196 of 2016 is hereby modi ed accordingly. An amount of Rs.
2,00,000/- as lump sum compensation shall be paid to the legal heirs
of the deceased respondent-workman by the petitioner-State, after
proper veri cation of the identity and bank details through


                                       Page 6 of 7
            C/SCA/7229/2024                                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026




    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 05/03/2026 17:17:02


                                                        Page 7 of 7