NARESH JAINTILAL VYAS vs RANGE FOREST OFFICER
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/3194/2010 (GJHC240450472010) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3194 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NARESH JAINTILAL VYAS
Versus
RANGE FOREST OFFICER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR BB GOGIA(5851) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RB GOGIA(5850) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MAYANK CHAVDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 24/08/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 by the petitioner praying for the
following reliefs:
“(A) To admit this Special Civil Application.
(B) To allow this petition and award dated
16/10/2009 published on 19/12/2009, in Reference
LCR No. 101/1991 pass by Ld. Presiding Officer
Labour Court No. 3 Rajkot as annexed at Annexure
“A” may please be set aside and quashed to the
extent by which the petitioner is granted Rs. 3000/-
as compensation only in lieu of re-instatement and
back wages.
(C) Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:50:04 IST 2026
C/SCA/3194/2010 (GJHC240450472010) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
respondent to re-instate the petitioner with continuity
of service ,with back wages and with other
consequential benefits from the date of termination,
till he is reinstated.
(D) Grant such other and further relief(s) as deemed
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case and in the interest of justice, with cost of the
petition.”
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Anand Gogia for the petitioner
and learned AGP Mr. Mayank Chavda for respondent No. 1.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
3.1 The petitioner – workman was working with the
respondent as a Chokidar from 10.12.1980. The services of
the petitioner – workman came to be terminated on
10.05.1984. The workman approached the learned Labour
Court, Rajkot by way of Reference being Reference (LCR)
No. 101 of 1991 whereby, the learned Labour Court denied
reinstatement to the workman but awarded a compensation
of Rs.3,000/- to the workman on the ground of violation of
provisions of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Act” ).
3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
award of the learned Labour Court, Rajkot, the petitioner –
workman is before this Court by way of the present petition.
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:50:04 IST 2026
C/SCA/3194/2010 (GJHC240450472010) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner – workman submitted
that the workman was appointed as a Chokidar on 10.12.1980 and
his services came to be illegally terminated on 10.05.1984. In the
year 2009, the age of workman was 50 years and, therefore, when
the award came to be passed, the workman had attained the age
of superannuation. It is submitted that the services of the petitioner
were wrongfully terminated whereby, the breach is attributed on
the part of the respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner is
entitled to back wages, as the learned Labour Court has found
violation of provisions of Section 25H of the Act.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner, upon instructions,
submitted that since the petitioner has reached the age of
superannuation, a lump-sum compensation be awarded in lieu of
reinstatement and other benefits. Except above, no other
submissions were made by learned advocate for the petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned AGP for the respondent has supported
the judgment and award and contended that there was delay of 6
years in raising an industrial dispute and, considering the delay,
grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.3,000/- is just and
reasonable. It is further submitted that the workman has also failed
to establish completion of 240 days in 12 calendar months before
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:50:04 IST 2026
C/SCA/3194/2010 (GJHC240450472010) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
the date of termination. It is, therefore, submitted that no
interference is required by this Court, considering the fact that the
learned Labour Court has assessed the oral as well as the
documentary evidence and awarded a reasonable compensation.
Except above, no other submissions were made by learned AGP
for the respondent.
7. I have considered submissions made by learned advocates
for the parties and perused papers placed on record. There is no
dispute on the fact that the workman was working as a Chokidar
with the respondent from 10.12.1980. It also appears from the
record that from 10.05.1983 upto 09.05.1984, the workman has
not been able to establish that he has completed 240 days of
service. The learned Labour Court has also held that the
documents which were produced by the respondent are not
controverted by workman during the cross-examination of witness
of the respondent. The workman could not establish that his
services were terminated on 10.05.1984. The evidence also does
not indicate that the services of the workman were terminated on
10.05.1984. An undisputed fact that has emerged during the
course of submissions, that the workman has attained the age of
superannuation in the year 2009, and, therefore, the workman is
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:50:04 IST 2026
C/SCA/3194/2010 (GJHC240450472010) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
only pressing for a reasonable amount of compensation in lieu of
reinstatement and other consequential benefits. Grant of lump-sum
compensation in lieu of reinstatement and other benefits is well
accepted concept in labour laws. However, while granting lump-
sum compensation, the Court has also to consider the delay
aspect in challenging the order of termination. In the present case,
according to the petitioner, his services were terminated in the
year 1984 and the Reference was filed in the year 1990. Thus,
there is a gross delay of 6 years in challenging the order of
termination.
8. Learned AGP for respondent No. 1 has placed reliance upon
the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case
of “Range Forest Officer vs. Haribhai Manjibhai Rathod” in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 106 of 2026. In paragraph No. 9 of the
said decision, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has
considered the period of delay. The challenge against the
termination order was delayed by 10 years. Lump-sum
compensation was granted to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/- which
was modified as per the guidelines laid down in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 908 in the case of “Bhikhabhai Fatabhai Solanki vs.
Executive Engineer, Narmada Project Canal System and
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:50:04 IST 2026
C/SCA/3194/2010 (GJHC240450472010) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
Another”. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court modified the
compensation from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- considering the
period of delay.
9. In the present case, there is a delay of 6 years in challenging
the order of termination. Applying the ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
908 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 106 of 2026, I am of the view
that the learned Labour Court has erred in granting a
compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the workman. In my view, the
amount of compensation is required to be enhanced. The
petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in lieu of
reinstatement and other benefits. The present petition is partly
allowed and disposed of accordingly. The respondent is hereby
directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the workman within
a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
MUSKAN
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:50:04 IST 2026