IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7962 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-

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

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

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Versus BHARTIBEN RAMESHBHAI BALDHA ==========================================================

Appearance:

MS SWEETY SAMARA AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR PANKAJ R DESAI(3120) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MRS NASRIN N SHAIKH(2451) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 19/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Desai, 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 12.10.2023 in Reference (LCR) No. 95 of 2015 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot, whereby the Labour Court has awarded reinstatement with continuity of service with 50%

backwages.

3. Facts of the case are that the respondent was working, as a Worker/Watchman with the petitioner from 1.5.2007 and drawing monthly salary of Rs.5,694/-. On 1.3.2015 the respondent was orally and arbitrarily discharged from service by the petitioner without following due procedure. Being aggrieved with the said termination, the workman raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, and the Labour Court, vide order dated 12.10.2023 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. Ms. Sweety Samara, learned AGP for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has submitted that the impugned order passed by the labour Court is wholly erroneous, bad in law and contrary to the facts and records of the case. She has submitted that the respondent herein was not in continuous service with petitioner as per Section 25(B) of the I.D. Act therefore, there was no breach of Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act committed by the petitioner herein. She has submitted that the labour Court has passed the impugned order without application of mind and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and present petition deserves to be allowed.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the respondent has objected the petition and submitted that the Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. He 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 aforesaid relief. 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 Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023 and allied appeals more particularly para – 10 and the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1091 of 2023 and allied appeals more particularly paras – 5 and 6, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved, if lump sum compensation is awarded in favour of the workman in lieu of reinstatement and all other consequen