IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13597 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-

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

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

SHREE DAMUBHAI ANAJUBHAI CHAUDHARI THROUGH LH CHAUDHARI JANIBEN DAMUBHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR JIGNESH D LAMBA(12891) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 17/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act challenging the impugned award dated 11.02.2025 in Reference (LCV) No. 27 of 2012 passed by the Labour Court, Valsad, whereby the Labour Court has partly allowed the reference and awarded Rs.50,000/- as lumpsum compensation to the legal heirs of the workman.

3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner, who died during the pendency of the reference, was working, as a Watchman with the respondent, from 1988 to 22.6.2011. During his service tenure, the employer was never issued appointment letter. No identity card, service book, seniority record or statutory benefits were extended to petitioner. On 1.7.2011 the petitioner was arbitrarily discharged from service by the respondent without following due procedure. Being aggrieved with the said termination, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court. During pendency of the reference the petitioner was died on 18.12.2019 and his legal heirs were brought on record. Thereafter, after hearing concerned parties, the Labour Court, vide order dated 11.02.2025 partly allowed the said reference and awarded the aforementioned relief.

3.1 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. Pandya, 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 for sixteen years and therefore, labour Court has committed error in passing the impugned order. He has submitted that before the labour Court, the petitioner has proved the violation of Section 25 F, G and H and therefore, the labour Court ought to have granted reinstatement. He has submitted that present petition may be allowed.

6. On the other hand, Ms. Patel, learned AGP for the respondent has objected the petition and submitted that the Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment. She has submitted that the workman has filed the reference before the labour Court after delay of two years from his termination. She has 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.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 Lett