IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3554 of 2023 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23996 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ================================================================

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

BHATHIBHAI NATHABHAI TALAR Versus DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ================================================================

Appearance:

MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS AGNEYA MANKAD, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 in SCA/3554/2023 MS ROSHNI PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Petitioner(s)

No. 1in SCA/23996/2022 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.

PRACHCHHAK Date : 20/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Present petitions are filed by the employer as well as the employee under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the impugned Award dated 05.01.2022 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T)No. 149 of 2013 with below mentioned relief/ in SCA/3554/2023:-

“(A) A writ of certiorari and/or a writ in the nature of certiorari and / or any other appropriate writ, order of direction be issued to quash and set aside impugned award dated 05.01.2022 passed by Labour Court, Godhra, in Reference (T) No.149 of 2013 qua not allowing the Reference of the petitioner in full and further may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant reinstatement with continuity in service and backwages;

(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service along with continuity:

(C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon’ble Court deemed fit, in the interest of justice, may kindly be granted."

2. The same Award has been challenged by the state in SCA/23996/2022.

3. Heard Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned Counsel for the employee and Ms. Agneya Mankad & Ms. Roshani Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for the Employer State.

4. Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in case of the similarly situated workmen, who have been terminated by the respondent employer, serving in the same irrigation department, this Court vide order dated 14.2.2020/20.1.2020 allowed Special Civil Application No. 22362 of 2019 and allied petitions and granted benefits to the concerned workmen. Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the Labour Court has rightly observed that the respondent has not produced any documents and considering the Law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court and in case of similar matters granted reinstatement without backwages. It is submitted that though continuity is not mentioned the same has to be considered as implied as per the settled law. It is submitted that in the similar cases of very department at very canal division in SCA/2205/2023, this court has while modifying award of lumpsum compensation granted relief of considering the service of the employee as continuous until he reached age of superannuation. In the present case the labour court has rightly passed the order of reinstatement however the labour court ought to have granted back wages.

5. Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, relied upon and referred to the decisions of the coordinate bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.22362 of 2019 and allied petitions, Special Civil Application No. 4168 of 2022 with Special Civil Application No.4198 of 2022 and the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.389 of 2024 and urges that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court be modified in line of the observations made in the said decisions.

6