IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8366 of 2022 ==========================================

SUBHASH PREMSHANKAR VYAS Versus RAJKOT IRRIGATION VIBHAG 1 & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR HEMAL K ACHARYA(6021) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS SWEETI SAMARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ==========================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 04/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Present petition is filed by the workman under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act [hereinafter be referred to as “the ID Act”] challenging the impugned award dated 29.06.2013 passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar whereby the Labour Court has allowed the reference.

2. Short facts of the present case are that the petitioner joined the service with respondent as a casual labourer and since 1998 he had continuously worked and in 1998 his service came to be terminated without complying the provision of Section 25(F)(G) and (H) the ID Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had raised the industrial disputes before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, which was referred to the Labour Court, where the petitioner filed statement of claim. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Labour Court partly allowed the reference.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

4. Heard Mr.Hemal Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Samara, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. Perused the material placed on record.

5. Mr.Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has also submitted that the Labour Court has not given proper opportunity to the petitioner, while passing the award and thereby committed an illegality and infirmity. He has submitted that the Labour Court has not looked into the legality and validity of the order passed by respondents No.1 and 2 and without going into the facts of the case partly allowed the reference. He has submitted that the Labour Court has erred in awarding Rs.7,000/- as lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and full back wages and also erred in not considering the statement of claim. He has submitted that the workman was the employee and worked continuously and completed 240 days in a preceding year and he was illegally terminated from the services. He has submitted that in identical reference, the Labour Court has declined to grant relief or reinstatement and other consequential benefits, against which the petition came to be filed before this Court i.e. Special Civil Application No. 18627 of 2013 and allied petition and this Court vide order dated 29.08.2016 modified the award and directed the employer to reinstate the concerned claimants. He has submitted that the said order dated 29.08.2016 passed by this Court came to be challenged by the employer by filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 1204 of 2017 and allied appeals and the appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.03.2018. He has submitted that the employer challenged the order dated 21.03.2018 passed by the Division Bench by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 42356 of 2018 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5.1. Mr.Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned award passed by the Labour Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, it appears that the workman was illegally terminated from the services and, therefore, he has raised the industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and, then