IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1229 of 2025 ================================================================

VAJESINH CHHATRASINH CHAUHAN Versus DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ================================================================

Appearance:

MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR VAIBHAVKUMAR I BHOI(12030) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR PRADIP J PATEL(5896) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 23/04/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner impugns the award dated 30.03.2024 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No.151 of 2011, whereby the learned Labour Court has partly allowed the reference and granted a lump sum compensation of Rs.70,000/- to the petitioner herein along with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

2. Learned counsel Mr.Dipak Dave appearing for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court has come to a categorical finding that there is violation of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act” for short) in the present case. He submits that in this background, the learned Labour Court ought to have granted reinstatement with back-wages instead of lump sum compensation. He submits that the petitioner has specifically stated that he had worked for 7 years with the respondent as a Rojamdar labourer and that the said statement has not been disproved by the respondent through credible evidence. He submits that in view thereof, the learned Labour Court has drawn adverse inference against the respondent and held that the petitioner had rendered continuous service for 7 years with the respondent. He submits that the learned Labour Court has also held that as per Section 25B of the ID Act, the petitioner was working continuously with the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lump sum compensation granted by the learned Labour Court is based on erroneous facts. He submits that the age of the petitioner on the date of passing of the award was 56 years and therefore, he had four more years of service left and that he had not crossed the age of superannuation. He submits that in this background, the petitioner ought to have been reinstated in service with full back-wages and consequential benefits. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the order dated 24.06.2022 in Special Civil Application No.4168 of 2022 and other connected matters passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, wherein it has been held that the compensation in lieu of reinstatement will be detrimental to the petitioner, who has worked for a long period of time. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.306 of 2008 dated 03.05.2018 and the order dated 19.03.2024 in Letters Patent Appeal No.190 of 2024 laying down a similar proposition. He, therefore, submits that the impugned award granting lump sum compensation be quashed and modified and the petitioner be granted reinstatement with full back-wages and all consequential benefits.

4. Per contra, learned counsel Mr.Pradip Patel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that in the present case the petitioner has not produced any document to show that he was working with the respondent. He submits that the petitioner has nowhere stated his date of joining of service with the respondent. He submits that the petitioner has only stated that he was working for 7 years before his alleged termination. He submits that even the date of termination is also not stated and the claim vaguely mentions date of oral termination as April, 1997. He submits that vague averments are made in the claim petition and that the learned Labour Court has partly allowed the reference only on the basis of adverse inference drawn against the respondent herein. He submits that the findings arrived at by the learned Labour Court are not based