IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5405 of 2024 ==========================================================

RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.

Versus PURSHOTTAMBHAI BHABHABHAI JETHVA SINCE DECD. THROUGH LHRS & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR KV GADHIA(319) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS ASMITA V PATEL(5356) for the Petitioner(s) No. 2 MR PANKAJ R DESAI(3120) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3 MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 28/11/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 15.01.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, No.1, Rajkot in Reference (L.C.R.) Number 45 of 2015 whereby the labour Court partly allowed the reference and instead of reinstatement, awarded Rs.3,00,000/- as lumpsum compensation in favour of the workman.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was initially engaged on 25.02.1991 as a labourer and had completed 240 days of service before the alleged termination, as contemplated under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter, the respondent was appointed in the Zoo Department with effect from 13.10.1992 and subsequently transferred to the Garden Department on the same day, where he claims to have served as a permanent employee and to have been paid basic pay along with medical and city allowances totalling Rs.2,779 per month.

2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent remained absent from duty for a prolonged period from 2004 to 2005 on the ground of illness and other personal reasons and though he was later placed in the Investment Department on 19.09.2005, he failed to report for duty even there. Consequently, a show-cause notice dated 02.01.2007 was issued to the respondent; however, no satisfactory reply was submitted and therefore a full- fledged departmental inquiry was held. After conclusion of the inquiry, the services of the respondent came to be terminated with effect from 03.07.2010. After almost four years from the date of termination, the respondent issued a demand notice dated 26.12.2014 and subsequently raised Reference (LCR) No. 45 of 2015 before the Labour Court, Rajkot challenging the termination order dated 03.07.2010. During pendency of the reference proceedings, the original workman – Purshottambhai Bhabhabhai Jethva – expired on 05.07.2016 and his legal heirs came to be brought on record pursuant to the order passed by the Labour Court. The petitioner filed reply to the statement of claim denying all allegations and contending inter alia that the reference was barred by delay and limitation, that the termination was based on a valid departmental inquiry, that the respondent was habitual in remaining absent from services. However, without properly appreciating the material placed on record, the Labour Court passed the impugned judgment and award.

2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award the petitioner Corporation has preferred present petition.

3. Mr. K.V. Gadhia, learned counsel for the petitioner– Corporation, has contended that several instances of misconduct were reported against the present respondent–original workman, particularly relating to habitual absenteeism. He submitted that the said fact was duly established during the course of the departmental inquiry and, therefore, punishment was imposed and the respondent was removed from service.

3.1 Mr. K.V. Gadhia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the order of removal was challenged by the concerned respondent–workman after a delay of about four years. However, without considering the contentions raised by the Corporation, the learned Pres