IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1747 of 2024 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/15031/2024 ==================================================

RAJESHBHAI DANABHAI DANGAR Versus THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

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

Appearance MR. ISHAN JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR KURVEN K DESAI(7786) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA Date : 11/03/2026

JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

[1] The workman approached the Labour Court with a complaint seeking a reference of his dispute, contending that he had worked from August 2000 to June 2006 as a peon-cum- sweeper and without following the due procedure under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 his services came to be terminated.

[2] The Labour Court, after an inquiry, recorded a finding that the appellant had worked sporadically and this was evidenced by the 144 salary vouchers that had been produced by him. The Labour Court also recorded a finding that the evidence produced by the workman regarding his employment from 2001 to 2006 had remained unrebutted. However, the Labour Court took the view that since admittedly the appellant was working in place of a permanent Peon and was essentially a daily wager, in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, the Labour Court awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.2 lakhs.

[3] The workman, being aggrieved by the denial of reinstatement and back wages, filed a writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, affirmed the view of the Labour Court and dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by this dismissal, the workman is in appeal.

[4] The Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact that the evidence produced by the workman showing that he was a daily wager and was being paid by means of salary vouchers from July 2001 to May 2006 was accepted by the management, inasmuch as the award of lump sum compensation has been accepted.

[5] Learned counsel appearing for the workman contends that if the workman had worked for a period of five years, as recorded by the Labour Court, the award of Rs.2 lakhs would be inadequate. He submits that the workman ought to have been reinstated, given the fact that he had worked for nearly six years, and he therefore submits that the impugned order be modified and the appellant be reinstated and awarded full back wages.

[6] As far as the claim for reinstatement and back wages is concerned, it is to be noticed that though the appellant claimed that he was terminated in the year 2006, he raised a dispute only three years thereafter in the year 2009. This delay on the part of the workman in approaching the Labour Court by itself weakens his claim for reinstatement.

[7] The Labour Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the workman was only entitled to a lump sum compensation and taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, as awarded a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. The learned Single Judge has accepted this lump sum compensation of Rs.2 lakhs on the ground that it was just and proper.

[8] In our view, the view of the Labour Court, as affirmed by the learned Single Judge regarding the adequacy of lump sum compensation cannot be found fault with. However, it is also noticed that this sum of Rs.2 lakhs, which was awarded in the year 2023, has remained unpaid to the appellant. The management does contend that this amount was offered, but the learned counsel for the management and for the workmen submits that the said amount was not accepted since it would prejudice the right of the workmen to challenge the award of the Labour Court. In our view, this stand of the workmen cannot be doubted.

[9] It also follows from the above that the management, i.e., an insurance company did hold on to the sum of Rs.