Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujart Thru Deputy Conservator ... vs Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Mandir on 11 February, 2026
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/815/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 815 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/11124/2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 405 of 2019
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11123 of 2017
=============================================
STATE OF GUJART THRU DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
Versus
BHUPATBHAI BACHUBHAI MANDIR & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MS VAISHNAVI VERMA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR YV VAGHELA(2450) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 11/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Vaishnavi Verma for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Y.V. Vaghela for the respondent No. 1.
2. These appeals are preferred by the appellant under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 being aggrieved by the Common Order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:31:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/815/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 11123 of 2017 and allied matters.
3. These appeals are admitted by the order dated 09.04.2019 and 15.02.2019 respectively. The Civil Application for stay was disposed of in view of the compliance of the order passed by the Labour Court and confirmed by the learned Single Judge.
4. During the pendency of this appeal, the respondent workman preferred the Special Civil Application No. 3155 of 2020 for a direction that the benefits of resolution dated 17.10.1988 be given to the respondent workman.
This Court (CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Biren Vaishnav) by order dated 18.07.2022 allowed the Special Civil Application No. 3155 of 2020 by directing the appellant to consider the case of the respondent workman for extending the benefit of the resolution dated 17.10.1988.
Accordingly, the appellant granted the benefit of the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 to the respondent workman subject to outcome of these appeals.
Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:31:58 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/815/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined
5. Learned advocate Mr. Y.V. Vaghela has placed on record the order dated 01.03.2023 granting the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 to the respondent workman along with the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1. We are therefore required to consider whether an interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge confirming the Judgment and Award passed by the Labour Court.
6. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents in both the appeals, so far as the Letters Patent Appeal No. 405 of 2019 is concerned, had raised the industrial dispute on the premise that he was working with the Forest Department since 20.03.1996 on a daily wage of Rs. 83/- and his services were terminated with effect from 01.01.2004 without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the I.D. Act").
Similarly, the services of the respondent in Letters Patent Appeal No. 815 of 2018 were also terminated by the appellant on 01.01.2004. Both the respondents raised the Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:31:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/815/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1) of the I.D. Act which was referred as Ref. LCR No. 121 of 2005 and Ref.
LCR No. 122 of 2005 before the Labour Court at Rajkot.
7. By Judgment and Award dated 30.11.2016, the Labour Court directed the appellant to reinstate the respondents workmen to their original position with continuity of service with 50% back wages. Being aggrieved, both the appellant and respondents preferred writ petitions before this Court. The respondents workmen preferred Special Civil Application Nos. 19683 and 19685 of 2017 for non grant of 50% back wages instead of 100% back wages by the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed all the four petitions by the interim Judgment and Order dated 02.04.2018.
8. Learned Single Judge after considering the facts of the case has observed as under :
"11. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, it prima facie found that following circumstances are not possible to be ignored:Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:31:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/815/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined (1) The Labour Court, on the basis of evidence on record, found specifically that though the workmen had issued notice of demand on 16.4.2004 prior to raising an industrial dispute, the said notice has not been even replied. It has also been found by the Labour Court that upto December, 2003, the workmen has continued to work.
(2) It is also observed by the Labour Court on the basis of evidence that though a case tried to be made out that respondents workmen on their own have left the job but, to substantiate that, no other concrete material is produced. It was also found that though an attempt was made to execute the panch rojkam to indicate that at the residence, the respondents workmen not available but, to prove that rojkam, panch witness -
Babubhai and Sulemanbhai have not been examined at all and, therefore, it was specifically found by the Labour Court that this is nothing but an attempt to concoct the defence and that has not been believed.
(3) Additionally, it is also found specifically by the Labour Court that practically for a period of 8 years, the respondents workmen had discharged their duties regularly and upon perusal of list of documents at Exh.11, it was found that sufficient number of days have been placed on job and for that purpose, salary slips have also been perused by the Labour Court. Looking to the overall evidence on record, it was specifically concluded that a case of abandonment of service by the respondents workmen is not emerging. As a result of this, it was categorically found that w.e.f. 1.1.2004, the workmen had been orally Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:31:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/815/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined discontinued.
(4) Now, with respect to the
discontinuance, certain statutory
obligations are required to be performed by the petitioner and that has been evaluated by the Labour Court by examining the effect of Section 25F and G of the I.D.Act, 1947 and also Rule 82 has been construed which deals with re- employment of retrenched workman and after considering the effect of these statutory provisions, it was noticed by the Labour Court that action on the part of petitioner authority is not in consonance with law. A further conclusion which has been arrived at by the Labour Court is that though the workmen had submitted claim statement on 10.10.2005, even for a period of almost 2 years, a reply was not submitted and only in the year 2008, the reply came to be submitted and the cross- examination which was taken in 2009. The non-cooperation of petitioner led the respondents to submit an application in 2013 to close the right of evidence which clearly indicates that for a pretty long period of almost 12 years, no effective steps have been taken by the petitioner to contest the reference as is tried in the present proceeding i.e. in a writ petition. In fact, overall consideration and material on record has led the Labour Court to believe that there is a violation of mandatory procedure and such condition precedent has not been observed, the award appears to have been passed in due exercise of discretion.
(5) Though extraordinary jurisdiction is limited to examining the decision-making process but, still, with a view to see that if any perversity is reflecting then, the High Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:31:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/815/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined Court can examine overall record. But on going through the entire material on record which has been placed even before this Court, the documents which are relied upon by the respondents workmen reflecting on page-44 is indicating that right from June, 1997 till substantial period just preceding the date of discontinuance, all salary slips are forming part of the record which were also perused by the Labour Court which substantially indicate that full period of service availed of from the respondents by the present petitioner and, therefore, what has been found by the Labour Court appears to be not a perverse reading of evidence at all. On the contrary, even perusal of such list of documents produced by the respondents workmen clearly establish that of a maximum period in a month, the work has been undertaken and, therefore, there appears to be a clear violation of mandate of the Statute as there is nothing on record to suggest that prior to discontinuance, any procedure established by provision contained under Section 25F of the I.D.Act, 1947 is observed. Additionally, the case of abandonment of service has not at all been established which circumstance also cannot be overlooked. As a result of this, the overall consideration of material on record would lead to a situation where discontinuance of the respondents workmen is not justiciable in the eye of law.
12. From the aforesaid analysis of evidence and the finding arrived at by the Labour Court, this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction is unable to dislodge the finding or substitute any other view if possible in the absence of any perversity or irregularity. In fact, Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:31:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/815/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined the considered opinion of this Court is that the Labour Court is justified in exercising the discretion, has passed an award after assigning proper reasons and while exercising such discretion, minute details have also been examined and after considering the effect of statutory provisions, an award is passed which cannot be branded in any manner as perverse. Hence, the scope of extraordinary jurisdiction is not permitting this Court to dislodge any finding arrived at by the Labour Court. In fact, there is no other view is possible as practically for a period of more than 8years, the services of the respondents workmen have been availed of by the petitioner. Hence, no case is made out by the petitioner.
13. So far as back wages to the extent of 50% is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that a very balanced jurisdiction is exercised by the Labour Court. Once there is a violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 or the condition precedent has not been observed then, the action impugned to be treated as non-est in the eye of law. Hence, the normal rule is to award reinstatement with full back wages. But here is a case in which the Labour Court has examined in detail and found that in view of the fact that some stray employment is obtained during the course of time, 50% back wages have been curtailed and, therefore, such a balanced view which has been taken is also not required to be interfered with. On the contrary, this Court is of the opinion that even if there is an engagement in the employment to earn livelihood, the same cannot be equated as gainful employment, rather it would be a forced employment for survival issue of the respondent and his family and, therefore, 50% back wages which has been awarded is thoroughly justified in considered view of this Court. Accordingly, even that issue is also not to be treated as perverse, in any manner.
Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:31:58 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/815/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined
14. Now, in the light of aforesaid situation prevailing on record, so far as cross petitions being SCA No.19683 and 19685 of 2017 are concerned, a balanced view is taken by the Labour Court in not granting 50% back wages. It has been observed that substantially the benefit of reinstatement and 50% back wages is granted by the Labour Court in view of some infirmities by the petitioner in leading the evidence and furthermore, there is no cogent material is produced by the respondents workmen to indicate that for a pretty long period of 12 years, they have remained without any earning. It appears that this long lapse of time, of-course, may not be at fault of the respondents workmen but, the same would permit the Labour Court to strike the balance of equity between two parties to the petitions. As a result of this, the view which has been taken by the Labour Court in refusing 50% back wages cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable, in any manner. In addition to the aforesaid situation, there is no cogent material even adduced by the respondents workmen that during the passage of time, they have pressed the petitioner authority to offer the work and, therefore, when such a situation was prevailing on record, the denial of 50% back wages cannot be said to be unjust or arbitrary. Considering the aforesaid overall situation on record, this Court is of the opinion that the award in question is not required to be interfered with. Accordingly, both the petitions being cross petitions also deserve to be dismissed."
9. Learned AGP Ms. Vaishnavi Verma for the appellant submitted that the respondents workmen have joined the service at other place and a Panchrojkam was drawn on 26.04.2004 and 01.06.2004 which were placed on record Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:31:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/815/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined which clearly shows that the respondents workmen had abandoned the service and had stopped going for work and therefore there was no illegal termination of the service by the appellant. Therefore, the question of violation of provisions of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act would not arise and the Labour Court has arrived at a conclusion without considering such Panchrojkam, which clearly shows that the respondents were not found at the place of their residence due to joining service at a private industry.
10. It was therefore submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court which are confirmed by the learned Single Judge are required to be quashed and set aside.
11. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Vaghela submitted that the Labour Court has categorically observed in the Award that the appellant has failed to examine the Panchs namely, Babubhai and Sulemanbhai and therefore, the Panchrojkam is not proved by the appellant and therefore the Labour Court has rightly not Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:31:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/815/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined considered the Panchrojkam to hold that the respondents have abandoned the service by joining other work in private factory.
12. It was further submitted that there are concurrent findings arrived at by the Labour Court confirmed by the learned Single Judge with regard to violation of the provisions of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act coupled with the fact that the respondents are reinstated in service subject to outcome of this appeal and the services of the respondents are also regularised by giving benefit of Government Resolutiion dated 17.10.1988 and therefore this appeals may not be entertained.
13. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case, it appears that the Labour Court on the basis of the evidence laid by both the sides has rightly come to the conclusion that there is violation of provisions of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act by the appellant, more particularly, the notice dated 16.04.2004 issued by the respondents workmen prior to raising the Industrial Dispute was not Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:31:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/815/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined replied by the appellant. Even the Labour Court has recorded the finding that both the respondents workmen continued to work up to December, 2003.
14. In view of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge on the merits of the matter as well as the scope of the interference in the findings of fact of the Labour Court while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge while exercising the very limited scope under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865.
15. The appeals, therefore being devoid of any merits are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) SYED SHAHANAZ Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Tue Feb 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 20:31:58 IST 2026