IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2814 of 2025 ==========================================================

SAJID MOHAMMAD ABDUL AJIJ MAKRANI Versus DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS FORAM TRIVEDI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 02/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the impugned award dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Labour Court, Godhara in Reference (T) No. 621 of 2006 whereby the labour Court has awarded lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-

in favour of the petitioner.

2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that present petitioner was working with the respondent since 1986 as a daily wager Watchman. After period of four years, the petitioner was illegally and arbitrarily terminated by the respondent from the services in the year 1990.

2.1 Against the said termination, the petitioner has raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Godhara being Reference (T) No. 621 of 2006, whereby the Labour Court instead of granting the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service along with all consequential benefits and full back- wages, granted the lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-.

2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Labour Court, Godhara, in Reference (T) No. 621 of 2006, the petitioner has preferred present petition, 3. Heard Mr. P.C. Chaudhari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Foram Trivedi, learned AGP for the respondent.

4. Mr. Chaudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the labour Court suffers from serious legal infirmities and complete non-application of settled principles of labour jurisprudence. He has submitted that after holding that the termination of the petitioner was illegal and after deciding almost all issues in favour of the petitioner—including the issue of delay—the Labour Court was duty-bound to grant the consequential relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages however instead, without assigning any cogent or exceptional reasons, the Labour Court has awarded a lumpsum compensation of only Rs.1,00,000/-. He has submitted that the said approach is not only perverse but also contrary to the well-established principle that once the termination is held to be illegal, reinstatement is the normal rule and compensation is the exception.

4.1 Mr. Chaudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after appreciating the evidence, the Labour Court recorded categorical findings in favour of the petitioner on every material aspect including the issue of delay. He has submitted that the respondent never challenged the terms of reference nor even pleaded delay in the written statement. It is further submitted that the respondent is a Public Works Department and the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 governing regularization of daily wagers is in force. He has submitted that in a case where the petitioner has served since 1986, was terminated in 1990, raised the dispute in 2006 and has secured an industrial award only in 2024, granting a meagre compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is illogical, inequitable and wholly disproportionate and such an award virtually legitimizes the illegal termination.

4.2 Mr. Chaudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment and award is illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed and set aside and present petition requires to be allowed.

5. On the other hand, Ms. Foram Trivedi, learned AGP for the respondent has submi