Gujarat High Court
Dhulabhai Kalubhai Maliwad vs Range Forest Officer on 7 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16596/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16596 of 2025
================================================================
DHULABHAI KALUBHAI MALIWAD
Versus
RANGE FOREST OFFICER
================================================================
Appearance:
NIDHI K TRIVEDI(9003) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS AGNEYA MANKAD, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 07/05/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is impugning the award dated 01.08.2024 in Reference (T) No.23 of 2018, whereby the learned Labour Court has partly allowed the reference of the petitioner-workman by granting lump sum compensation of Rs.60,000/- instead of reinstatement with continuity in service and back-wages.
2. Learned counsel Mr. Dipak Dave appearing for the petitioner- workman submits that the petitioner had joined the service of the respondent on 19.06.2005 and had worked continuously on their establishment till 14.08.2012 when the service of the petitioner came to be orally terminated without following any due procedure of law. He submits that the petitioner-workman has more than 15 years of service left before his retirement. He further submits that the learned Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in 4 years and considering the provisions of Section 25B(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act" for short), the petitioner's service has been deemed to be continuous service for the period of 8 years. He submits that the Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 02:36:36 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16596/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026 undefined learned Labour Court has also come to the conclusion that there is violation of the provisions of Sections 25G and 25H of the ID Act also in the present case. He submits that despite recording such finding, the learned Labour Court has erred in granting lump sum compensation of Rs.60,000/-. He submits that the reasoning provided by the learned Labour Court is untenable. He submits that the learned Labour Court has denied the benefit of reinstatement with continuity in service and back-wages only on the ground that the reference is being allowed in the year 2024 and the petitioner has been terminated from the year 2012 and therefore, more than 11 years have passed since the petitioner has worked on the establishment of the respondent. He submits that the said finding is erroneous and is liable to be set aside and the petitioner be granted continuity in service with back-wages.
3. Learned counsel Mr. Dave for the petitioner, upon instructions, submits that if the petitioner is granted continuity in service, he is ready to forego the back-wages for the period of 11 years as observed by the learned Labour Court. He submits that since the petitioner is aged around 40 years, he has future service of about 20 years and that the petitioner has already worked for a period of 8 years as held by the learned Labour Court. He submits that the impugned award be modified accordingly since the lump sum compensation as awarded is prejudicial to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 23.08.2024 in Letters Patent Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 02:36:36 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16596/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026 undefined Appeal No.2378 of 2017, wherein it has been held that once there is violation of Sections 25G and 25H of the ID Act, the workman cannot be denied reinstatement. He, therefore, submits that the present petition be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned AGP Ms. Agneya Mankad appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner is a daily wage labourer. He is not appointed through any regular recruitment process. In view thereof, the respondent has not served any termination notice to the petitioner-workman. She further submits that in any case, the defence of the respondent is that the petitioner has abandoned his work and voluntarily stopped coming for work. She submits that the petitioner-workman has not worked for 240 days in the preceding year of his alleged termination. She submits that though the total service of the workman is for a period of 8 years, the petitioner has completed 240 days only in 4 years out of 8 years. She submits that further the petitioner has raised a dispute after a period of 4 years. She submits that the workman was allegedly terminated in the year 2013, whereas the reference was preferred by the petitioner in the year 2017. She submits that the reference ought not to have been entertained in view of the delay of 4 years. She further submits that the learned Labour Court has rightly denied reinstatement with continuity in service and back-wages in view of the fact that the petitioner-workman had not worked with the respondent- establishment for a period of more than 11 years from the date of his alleged termination. She submits that the impugned order is just and Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 02:36:36 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16596/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026 undefined proper and the present petition be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Considered the submissions and perused the documents on record.
6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the impugned award has not been challenged by the respondent. The learned Labour Court by the impugned award has come to the conclusion that the petitioner-workman has worked with the respondent- establishment from 19.06.2005 till 14.08.2012. The said finding is based on the documents produced on record by the respondent, which shows that the petitioner has worked as under:-
Sr. No. Year Total number of working
days
1 2005 135
2 2006 280
3 2007 225
4 2008 305
5 2009 288
6 2010 264
7 2011 194
8 2012 (14/08/2012) 106
Accordingly, in view of the provisions of Section 25B(1) of the ID Act, the service of the petitioner has been treated to be continuous service with the respondent-establishment. The learned Labour Court has also come to the conclusion that the work being done by the petitioner-workman was of a continuous nature and therefore, the respondent has not complied with the provisions of Sections 25G and 25H of the ID Act in the present case and Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 02:36:36 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16596/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026 undefined therefore, the learned Labour Court has held that the termination of the petitioner-workman is illegal and in contravention of the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the ID Act.
7. On the issue of delay in filing the reference, the learned Labour Court has recorded that the petitioner has worked for 8 years continuously with the respondent-establishment and has been illegally terminated in the year 2013. Therefore, even though the reference has been filed in the year 2017, the delay is not fatal in the present case and the petitioner-workman cannot be denied the reliefs on the ground of delay. Accordingly, the learned Labour Court has held that the delay in filing reference shall not come in the way of the petitioner-workman. The learned Labour Court on the issue of reinstatement in service has come to a conclusion that the petitioner- workman has been terminated in the year 2013 and the reference has been disposed of in the year 2024, therefore, there is a gap of 11 years. It is further held that the petitioner-workman has not worked with the respondent-establishment for this period of 11 years and therefore, he is not entitled for reinstatement and accordingly, the learned Labour Court has granted lump sum compensation of Rs.60,000/-.
8. In view of the settled legal position and in the facts and circumstances of the present case taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner-workman has been held to have worked continuously for a period of 8 years with the respondent and further that he is aged about 40 years as on date, the grant of lump sum Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 02:36:36 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16596/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026 undefined compensation is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. In the present case, the learned Labour Court has come to the categorical finding that the termination of the petitioner-workman is illegal and there is violation of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the ID Act. Therefore, the evidence on record reveals that the respondent has indulged in unfair labour practice and that the petitioner-workman is entitled for the relief of reinstatement.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner-workman is ready to forego the back-wages for the period from the date of his termination till the date of the award.
11. In view of the reasons and observations made hereinabove, the present petition is partly allowed. The petitioner-workman shall be entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service and all consequential benefits. He will not be entitled to any back-wages from the date of his termination till the date of the award. The rest of the award is upheld and the findings are confirmed. The lump sum compensation as granted is set aside. The impugned award stands modified accordingly. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
In addition, Direct Service is permitted.
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) ABHISHEK/51 Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 02:36:36 IST 2026