IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13833 of 2020 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No No ==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Versus DWARKAPRASAD RAMDULARE YADAV & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MS FORAM TRIVEDI AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 AAKASH D MODI(7449) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 03/12/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner-State of Gujarat under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned award dated 16.10.2018 in Reference (L.C.J.) No. 03 of 2014 passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar whereby the Labour Court has partly allowed the reference and awarded reinstatement to respondent No.1 with continuity of service however, without any backwages.

2. Facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 was working as Rojamdar since 1999 and after period of more than 10 years, his service came to be orally terminated on 11.11.2011 by the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the said termination, the respondent No.1 raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Jamnagar and the Labour Court, Jamnagar vide order dated 16.10.2018 has partly allowed the said reference and granted reinstatement with continuity of service to the respondent No.1 herein however, without any backwages.

3. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner-State of Gujarat has preferred present petition.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

5. Ms. Trivedi, learned AGP for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has submitted that Labour Court has committed error in observing that respondent No.1 was in continuous service with the petitioner, as defined and stated under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. She has submitted that the respondent No.1 has never worked with the petitioner for 240 days and under such circumstances, the conclusion of the Labour Court that the respondent No.1 had worked for 240 days with the petitioner is erroneous, and therefore, the order suffers from infirmity and illegality. Over- and-above, the grounds enumerated in the memo of petition, the learned AGP for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is illegal, unjust and improper and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Mr.Modi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has objected the petition and submitted that the Labour Court has not committed any error in granting reinstatement to respondent No.1. He has submitted that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is in consonance with the provisions of law. He has submitted that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court by considering the facts of the case and the settled legal principles. Lastly, he has submitted that considering the length of service of the respondent No.1, this Court may pass appropriate order.

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 granting reinstatement to the respondent No..1 however, this Court is of the opinion that considering the length of service of the respondent No.1 with the petitioner, lump sum compensation is required to be paid to the respondent No.1. 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 Dad