VIRABHAI GALABHAI PATELIYA SINCE DECD. THROUGH LHS v. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BHADAR NAHER VITRAN SUB DIVISION

C/SCA/12339/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12339 of 2025 ================================================================ VIRABHAI GALABHAI PATELIYA SINCE DECD. THROUGH LHS & ORS.

Versus

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BHADAR NAHER VITRAN SUB DIVISION ================================================================ Appearance:

MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5 MS AGNEYA MANKAD, AGP (ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.

PRACHCHHAK

Date : 08/01/2026

ORAL ORDER

[1] Rule returnable forthwith. Present petition is fi led by the heirs of deceased employee under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the impugned award dated 09.08.2024 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 90 of 2014 with below mentioned relief/s:- “(A) A writ of certiorari and/or a writ in the natu re of Certiorari and / or any other appropriate writ, order of direction be issue d to quash and set aside impugned award dated 09.08.2024 passed by Labour Court, Go dhra, in Reference (T) No.90 of 2014 qua not allowing the Reference of the petitioner in full and further may be pleased to di rect the respondents to reinstate petitioner in service with continuity and pay full back wages and all consequential benefits to the petitioner no. 1/1 until the date of death of her husband and after that, the petitioner 1/1 may be held entitled to all the retirement benefits including pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other retirement benefits treating deceased workman’s service continuous;

(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct respondents to confer pensionary benefits to the petitioner no. 1/1 ;

Page 1 of 10

C/SCA/12339/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026 (C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon’ble Court deemed fit, in the interest of justice, may kindly be granted."

[2] Heard Dipak R. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Agneya Mankad, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent.

[3] Mr.Dipak R. Dave, learned Counsel for the petiti oner submits that in case of the similarly situated workmen, who have b een terminated by the respondent employer, serving in the same irrig ation department, this Court vide order dated 14.2.2020/20 .1.2020 allowed Special Civil Application No. 22362 of 2019 and alli ed petitions and granted benefits to the concerned workmen. It is submitted that in the similar cases of very department at very canal divisi on in Special civil Application No.2205 of 2023, this court has while mo difying award of lumpsum compensation granted relief of considering th e service of the employee as continuous until he reached age of s uperannuation.

Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the Labour Court has observed that the respo ndent has not produced any documents however, Labour Court has not considered this fact and therefore, while passing the impugned award the Labour Court has committed serious error and therefore, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is erroneous, unjust, il legal. Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Labour Court has observed that all the issues are proved b y the petitioner by material and cogent evidence however, merely on conj ectures and surmises that the workman has expired, the Labour Court has awarded lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,0 00/- which is bad in law and not in consonance with the settled legal principle.

Page 2 of 10

C/SCA/12339/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026 [3.1] Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, relied upon and referred to the decisions of the coordinate bench of this Court in Special Civil Appl ication No.22362 of 2019 and allied petitions, Special Civil Application No. 4168 of 2022 with Special Civil Application No.4198 of 2022 and t he order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Lett ers Patent Appeal No.389 of 2024 and urges that the impugned award pas sed by the Labour Court be modified in the line of the observat ions made in the said decisions.

[3.2] Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner h as submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of the concerned workman is further carried in Appeal by th e State before the Division Bench by way of preferring Letters Pat ent Appeal No. 389 of 2024 and the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order d ated 7.8.2024 confirmed the said order and rejected the Letters Pat ent Appeal No.

389 of 2024 filed by the State and therefore, simila r order may be passed in present petition also.

[4] Per contra, Ms.Mankad, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent has strongly opposed and objected present petition by and submitted that the petitioner workman has not pr oved that he has worked in the said Canal and there was no documentary evidence produced by the petitioner and urged to dismiss the petition.

[4.1] In view of the above submissions, Ms. Mankad, l earned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent urges before t he Court that petition of the employee may not be entertained and t he same may be rejected and impugned order passed by the Labour Court may be upheld.

Page 3 of 10

C/SCA/12339/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026 [5] I have considered the material and relevant docu ments placed on record. I have also gone through the record of the petition as well as the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and th e relevant papers appended to the petition.

[6] It appears that the issue involved in present p etition has already been decided by two different coordinate benches of this Court wherein services of similarly situated workmen, who w ere working in the same ofÏce and at the same site came to be terminat ed and the workmen have challenged the said order of terminatio n before the Labour Court and Labour Court has awarded lumpsum co mpensation by rejecting the order of reinstatement. The said order was challenged by the concerned workmen before this Cour t by way of preferring Special Civil Application No.22362 of 2019 and allied petition, whereby after hearing the parties, the co ordinate bench of this Court has passed an order dated 14.2.2020/20.1.2020 and allowed the group of petitions, keeping in mind the observations made in paragraph Nos. 9, 10 and 11.

[7] The said petition came to be allowed with the di rection to the respondent to consider the case of all the concerne d workmen for retirement benefits, who have attained the age of sup erannuation instead of granting reinstatement, till the date of superannuation with continuity of service. It is not in dispute that in case of Jawanbhai Malabhai Pagi, Special civil Application No.2205 of 2023 which is of Bhadar Canal Sub Division, Lunawada i.e very respon dent, in case of similarly situated employee, this court has modified award of compensation by allowing the petition of an employee and directed to treat his service as continuous till date of retire ment and to pay all Page 4 of 10 C/SCA/12339/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026 retirement benefits which is confirmed in LPA No. 855 of 2025.

[8] Similarly situated workman through his heirs ha s filed present petition and therefore, similar order is required to be passed in the facts of the present petition also.

[9] At this stage, it appropriate to take into account the similar observation made by the co-ordinate bench of this C ourt in Special Civil Application No. 4168 of 2022 and Special Civil Application No.

4189 of 2022 vide judgment dated 24.6.2022 which reads as under:- "10. Accordingly, as held by this Court in the judgem ent of Chhatrasing Marutising Bariya vs. Dy. Executive Engineer & Ors., the petitions are allowed. Under the circumstances, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is erroneous to the extent of granting compensation. The respondents are directed to reinstate the workmen in service with continuity of service. However, it is clarified that they will not be entitled to any backwages as they have given up their claims. A fter their reinstatement, it will be open for the petitioners – workmen to file a representation claiming the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.The order reinstating the petitioner workmen sha ll be passed within a period of three months from the date of re ceipt of this order. The amount of compensation, if already paid to the workmen, the same shall be adjusted while fixing their pay.

11. As far as petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 4189 of 2022 is concerned, he has attained the age of superannuatio n. The Court accedes to the request of quashing and setting aside the order of lump-sum compensation and instead grant the reinstatement till the date of superannuation with continuity of service. The back wages has been forgone by the employee with the grant of continuity to him who has attained the age of superannuation. He shall be pai d consequentially the retirement benefits on the strength of modified award i n not later than twelve weeks’ time from the date of receipt of copy of this order."

[10] It is also required to be noted herein that th e Hon'ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 389 of 2024 has c onfirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge and observed that:- “10. On a perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court, we find that the Page 5 of 10 C/SCA/12339/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026 Labour Court had directed the employer to produce muster-roll to satisfy as to whether from which year, the workman has completed 240 days. Despite the aforesaid direction, the employer of the respon dent-workman did not produce the same. It is asserted by the workman that he was engaged from 1994 to 1997 however, his service was terminated from 03. 10.1997. The learned Single Judge after placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R.M. Yellatti (supra), has hel d that the termination was not in violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Act, no muster roll was produced by the employer, though directed by the Labour Court.

11. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order, more particularly in paragraph No.6 has held thus : - “6. Apart from setting out the number of days that t he respondent had worked in the years 1994 to 1997 as referred to here in above, perusal of the award of the Labour Court would indi cate that in one of the references which was heard together with the present reference, at mark 20/1, the employer was called upon to produce the muster roll to satisfy the Labour Court as to w hether in each year of service, the workman had completed 240 days. At mark 17/1, the deposition of the employer’s witness Ravind ran Karunakaran Nair was also considered. The Labour Court considering the decision of the Supreme Court in case of R.M.Ye llatti v. Assi.

Executive Engineer reported in 2006 SSC (L&S) 1 held that adverse inference has to be drawn in the event of employer having failed to produce oral as well as documentary evidence on record. Even otherwise, this Court had an occasion to deal with the awards of a similar nature where the Labour Court fell short of awarding reinstatement and awarded compensation. The petitio ns were filed by the State challenging the award of reinstatement with 10% back- wages and those of some workmen who are already awarded compensation. In the oral order dated 20.01.2020, the Court confirmed the orders of reinstatement, however, set a side the order of granting 10% back-wages. In other words, the award of reinstatement without back – wages was the award of the Labour Court which was in terms modified.”

12. We are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. We have also noticed that the Department, in which the respondent-workman was working was never closed down and there were other employees, who were working along with t he present workman.

It is also not in dispute that no seniority list ha s been produced by the appellant before the Labour Court, and hence, the L abour Court is justified in holding the termination in violation of Section 25G and H of the I.D. Act."

[11] Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has rejec ted the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State and confirmed the orde r passed by the learned Single Judge and observed paragraph No. 13 as under:- Page 6 of 10 C/SCA/12339/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026 "13. Thus we do not find any reason for interfering th e judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the pres ent appeal fails. The same is hereby rejected accordingly."

[12] Therefore, the orders passed by the two differe nt coordinate benches of this Court are now confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench and therefore, this Court has no any other alternate but to pass the similar order in view of the order passed by the two different coordinate bench of this Court and confirmed by Division Bench of this Court.

[13] It is required to be noted herein that once th e coordinate bench of this Court has considered the submissions and pas sed the order which is upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench, for considering the judicial discipline and propriety, this Court has n o any alternate but to pass the similar order as observed by the Hon'ble Ape x Court, time and again that in similar identical facts, if one co ordinate bench has taken the view then the another coordinate bench ha s to follow the same.

[14] It is also appropriate to take into account th at in the another group of Letters Patent Appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 622 of 2024 the court has confirmed the order of learned Sin gle Judge in the similarly situated workman on the same line, where the Labour Court has awarded lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and that was interfered by coordinate bench of this Court, w hich is upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.

622 of 2024. Relevant paragraph No. 3 read as under:- “3. The Division Bench vide order dated 19.03.2024 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.190 of 2024, has held in paragraphs, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and Page 7 of 10 C/SCA/12339/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026 10 as under:

“4. It is further noted by the learned Single Judge that the only documents, that were produced by the employer, were for the period from January 2007 to December 2009. The contention on behalf of the State was that on account of delay of 2 years in raising the dispute,when the work at the Canal had been outsourced, reinstatement was not possible, that too after a la pse of 20 years from the date of termination of the services of the petitioner, as admitted to the petitioner.

5. These findings returned by the learned Single Judg e are sought to be assailed by Ms. Hetal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the State- appellant, with t he assertions in the written statement placed before us. It is sough t to be submitted that the petitioner was engaged in a project which has come to an end and he was never engaged by the Bhadar Canal Sub-Division.

6. This statement made in the written statement is f ound to be wrong for the simple reason that on the asking of t he Labour Court, the employer had produced the attendance records of only last three years, i.e. for the period from January 2007 to December 2009. It was not the case of the appellant- employer that the petitioner was never engaged in the department. The complete record establishing the period of working of the pe titioner even in the Project, wherein he was allegedly engaged by the respondent as per the contentions in the written statement, had not been produced by the employer.

7. The best evidence was in the custody of the appel lant employer and for not producing the entire record including t he attendance- sheet to establish the actual period of working of the petitioner, adverse inference was required to be drawn by the Labour Court.

8. It is an admitted fact of the matter that apart from the attendance-sheet of three years, no oral or documen tary evidence was placed by the appellant department before the L abour Court and the best evidence was withheld in spite of the specific directions issued by the Labour Court.

9. We are, therefore, of the view that the findings r eturned by the learned Single Judge that the compensation in lieu of reinstatement will be detrimental to the petitioner, who has work ed over a period of 20 years and who has been illegally restrained f rom working at the instance of the employer. As the respondent department/ appellant herein has failed to establish the period of working of the petitioner, who has admittedly been engaged in the department since 1983 till July 2011, as categorically stated by the workman, we are of the considered view that for violation of th e Section 25-F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, the reinstate ment ought to have been followed, as directed by the learned Single Judge.

Page 8 of 10

C/SCA/12339/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026 10. For the aforesaid, no case is made out for interf erence. The appeal is, therefore, DISMISSED, afiirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Pending Civil Application als o stands DISPOSED OF.”

[15] In the present case labour court has rightly c onsidered evidence on record and relying upon Judgment of Hon’ble supre me court in case of Director, Fisheries terminal division, AIR 2 010 SC 1236, held that the employee has rendered continuous service as per section 25B of ID Act. The Labour court, Godhra in reference (T) no.148 of 2013 has passed identically worded award and as onl y compensation was granted, the same was modified in Special Civil Application No.2205 of 2023 and confirmed in LPA No. 855 of 2025. In the present case thus looking to 24 years of service from March, 1987 to June, 2011, the Labour court erred in granting compensation.

[16] In view of the above observations and keeping in mind the observations made by the two different Coordinate Ben ches of this Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 22362 of 201 9 and 4168 of 2022 with 4189 of 2022 and confirmed by the Hon'ble D ivision Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 389 of 2024, present petition is hereby allowed. The impugned award dated 09.08.2024 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 90 of 2014 is hereby modified and the respondent is hereby directe d to consider the service of the deceased workman- petitioner, as continuous on the same line and treat the deceased workman in conti nuous service till he has expired i.e., till 04.06.2015 and pay all the retiral consequential benefits, as directed by two co-ordinate benches of this Court and upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench.

[17] All the consequential reliefs and retiral benefi ts, as granted by Page 9 of 10 C/SCA/12339/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026 the two different Coordinate Benches of this Court i n Special Civil Application Nos. 22362 of 2019 and 4168 of 2022 with 4189 of 2022 and confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this C ourt in Letters Patent Appeal No. 389 of 2024, shall be paid to the present petitioner no.1/1, wife of deceased workman within period of th ree months from the date of receipt of copy of writ of this order.

[18] Accordingly the petition stands disposed of. Ru le made absolute to the above extent. Direct service is permitted.

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)

Dolly

Page 10 of 10

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.

Digitally signed by: DOLLYBEN CHETANBHAI VADUKAR(HC01392), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/01/2026 17:16:46