JOSEPH DAHYABHAI SOLANKIversusBLUE DART EXPRESS LIMITED

   C/SCA/9013/2023                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9013 of 2023


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-

==========================================================

          Approved for Reporting                   Yes          No
                                                                No
==========================================================
                        JOSEPH DAHYABHAI SOLANKI
                                  Versus
                     BLUE DART EXPRESS LIMITED & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KANABHAI M VADHIYA(12543) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SWEETY SAMARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
UMANG P RAVAL(9074) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                              Date : 23/02/2026

                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Sweety Samara, learned
AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the
respondent No.2 and Mr. Umang P. Raval, learned counsel
waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1.

2. Present petition is #led by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions of Industrial
Disputes       Act    challenging     the       impugned     award        dated
3.12.2022 in Reference (T) Case No. 20 of 2005 passed by the



                                  Page 1 of 6
   C/SCA/9013/2023                        JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




Labour Court, Ahmedabad, whereby the Labour Court has
partly allowed the reference #led by the workman and
awarded Rs.1,50,000/- as lumpsum compensation.


3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as
'Operation Sta5' on 8.6.1992 with the respondent No.1 for a
period of six months on probation and was subsequently
con#rmed by the respondent No1 on 12.3.1993. As per the
petitioner, he was handed a charge-sheet cum suspension
order dated 15.3.2004 and on the basis of which after a full-
;edged departmental inquiry the petitioner came to be
removed from his service on 4.9.2004.

3.1 Being aggrieved with the said termination, the petitioner
raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court being
Reference (T) Case No.20 of 2005 and the Labour Court, vide
order dated 3.12.2022 partly allowed the said reference and
awarded lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-.


3.2 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. Mr. Vadhiya, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of
petition and has submitted that the petitioner has rendered
his service with respondent No.1 for 13 years and therefore,
Labour Court has committed error in passing the impugned
order. He has submitted that the impugned order passed by


                            Page 2 of 6
   C/SCA/9013/2023                               JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




the Labour Court is contrary to the provisions of laws and
violates the rights of the petitioner under the Constitution of
India. He has submitted that the order passed by the labour
Court in not in consonance with the provisions of law. He has
submitted that present petition may be allowed.

6. On the other hand, Ms. Samara, learned AGP and Mr.
Raval, learned counsels for the respondents have objected the
petition and submitted that the Labour Court has not
committed any error in passing the impugned judgment. They
have submitted that infact the impugned award passed by the
Labour 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
lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. 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



                                 Page 3 of 6
   C/SCA/9013/2023                               JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




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
awarded in favour of the workman is enhanced.


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
        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
       Sr.No.
                          compensation           sum 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


                                 Page 4 of 6
   C/SCA/9013/2023                               JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




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.”


10.   Now, considering the materials placed on record and the
peculiar facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that
instead of granting any other relief, it would be just and
proper to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- 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



                                 Page 5 of 6
     C/SCA/9013/2023                                                               JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026




quashed and set aside and the award is modi#ed accordingly.
An amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as lump sum compensation shall
be paid to the workman 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. If the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by
the Labour Court is paid by the employer then the same shall
be deducted from the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and if
the said amount is not paid then the lump sum amount which
is awarded by this Court shall be paid to the workman. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order
as to costs.


                                                                                            Sd/-
                                                                        (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
 Digitally signed by: SURESHKUMAR MOTIBHAI SOLANKI(HC00208), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/02/2026 17:51:59




                                                        Page 6 of 6