IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 749 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/16708/2018 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 751 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18455 of 2018 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✓

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

CHANDABU WD/O LATE HARUN H. SAIYAD & ORS.

Versus SENIOR POST MASTER ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3 MS KAJAL L KALWANI(6623) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3 MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA Date : 06/01/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Kajal L Kalwani for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Harsheel D.

Shukla for the respondent.

2. Appeals are admitted. Learned advocate Mr.

Harsheel D. Shukla waives service of notice of admission of appeals on behalf of the respondent.

3. The appellants who are the legal heirs of Late Shri Harun H. Saiyad have preferred these appeals being aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 23.02.2024 passed in Special Civil Application No.16708 of 2018 preferred by the respondent and Special Civil Application No.18455 of 2018 preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 06.10.2017 in Reference (CGITA) No. 975 of 2004 passed by CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad (For short “CGIT”).

4. The workman was appointed on 17.10.1988 for the period from 17.10.1988 to 22.10.1988 as leave arrangement in place of regular employee Shri L.M. Joshi. The workman was however thereafter continued as stop-gap arrangement upto 06.10.1990. Thereafter the workman was not called for duty by the respondent. The workman therefore raised dispute before the CGIT in the year 2004 which is registered as Reference (CGITA) No. 975 of 2004.

5. The CGIT by judgment and award dated 06.10.2017 held that the retrenchment of the workman was illegal and awarded Rs.30,000/- as lump-sum compensation.

6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellants who are legal heirs of the workman and the respondent have preferred Special Civil Applications challenging the same.

7. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 23.02.2024 after considering the submissions of both the sides has held that the findings of the CGIT are erroneous as there is no breach of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (For short “ID Act”) and accordingly, quashed and set aside the judgment and award passed by the CGIT, however, the amount awarded by CGIT being meager, was not interfered with.

8. Learned advocate Ms. Kajal L Kalwani appearing for the appellants submitted that admittedly the workman has worked for more than 240 days including Holidays and Sundays in the year 1989-

1990 which is not in dispute.

9. Reliance was placed on the chart given in the judgment and award of the CGIT to point out that from 01.02.1989 to 05.07.1990, the workman had worked for 401 days excluding the Sundays and Holidays.

10. This Court directed the respondent to file an affidavit showing as to whether weekly holidays as well as festive holidays are calculated while calculating 240 days of working by the workman preceding his termination or not as the workman in his deposition has categorically stated that he has worked for 240 days.

11. Pursuant to such directions, an affidavit is filed by the respondent on 16.11.2025 stating that weekly holidays and festive holidays were not included while computing the total days of service of the workman. From Annexure-R1 to the affidavit in reply, details of working days is also placed on record which shows that the w