RANGITBHAI BHIKHABHAI BODANA vs RANGE FOREST OFFICER - THASARA

C/SCA/10036/2026 (GJHC240346332026) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10036 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RANGITBHAI BHIKHABHAI BODANA
Versus
RANGE FOREST OFFICER - THASARA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRAKASH G PANDYA(3041) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MAYANK CHAVDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. KM ANTANI(6547) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

Date : 02/09/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice qua
respondent No.1.
2. By way of present petition, the petitioner
assailed the judgment and order dated 16.07.2024
passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Nadiad, in Reference (LCN) No.4 of 2022.
3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Pandya for
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:48 IST 2026

C/SCA/10036/2026 (GJHC240346332026) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
the petitioner has fairly submitted that the issue
involved in the present matter is no longer res
integra and in similar set of facts, the Division
Bench of this Court has passed common order dated
18.04.2024 in Letters Patent Appeal No.908 of 2023
and allied matters, whereby, though the claim of the
concerned appellants – original petitioners for full
back-wages and continuity in service has been turned
down, the Division Bench has granted the benefit of
lump sum compensation to the family members of the
deceased workman. He further submitted that at the
time of calculating the amount of lump sum
compensation, the Division Bench has considered the
number of years of service of the concerned workman
and while calculating the number of years of service,
the Division Bench has deducted the number of years
of service for which there was delay in preferring
the reference and after deducting such number of
years of service, the Division Bench proposed the
amount of lump sum compensation as follows:
Sr. No. Total No. of years for
lump sum compensation
Amount of lump sum
compensation
1. 5 to 10 years Rs.3.00 lacs
2. 10-15 years Rs.5.00 lacs
3. 15-20 years Rs.7.5 lacs
4. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submitted that
petitioner workman was working as a Watchman with
respondent No.1 from 01.07.1994. The services of the
workman concerned came to be terminated by the
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:48 IST 2026

C/SCA/10036/2026 (GJHC240346332026) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
respondent No.1 w.e.f. 15.07.2021. Thus, the total
length of services of the petitioner was
approximately 27 years. It was the case of the
petitioner that while terminating the service, the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act had not
been appreciated by the learned Labour Court. Learned
advocate Mr. Pandya further submitted that at the
time of dismissing the Reference, the learned Labour
Court has not considered the fact that petitioner had
served more than 27 years with the respondent No.1,
despite that the Labour Court has not granted the
benefit of lump sum compensation to the petitioner
and therefore the judgment and order passed by the
learned Labour Court may be quashed and set aside and
petition may also be allowed in terms of the decision
of Division Bench of this Court.
5. On the other hand, learned AGP has objected the
petition and submitted that the petitioner was not
regular employee and he was serving as daily wager.
He further submitted that there was delay in
preferring the reference before the Labour Court.
Except that no other arguments were canvassed on his
behalf. However, he has fairly conceded that at the
time of dismissing the Reference, Labour Court has
not granted lump sum compensation to the petitioner
and in similar set of facts, the Division Bench of
this Court has passed common order dated 18.04.2024
granting the benefit of lump sum compensation to the
concerned workmen considering their length of
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:48 IST 2026

C/SCA/10036/2026 (GJHC240346332026) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
service. He, therefore, submitted that appropriate
order may be passed.
6. Having considered the submissions canvassed by
learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties and considered the materials placed on
record, it transpires that petitioner was working as
a Watchman with the respondent No.1 from 01.07.1994.
However, as per the case of the petitioner, his
services came to be terminated by the respondent No.1
w.e.f. 15.07.2021 without following the provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, the total length
of services of the petitioner was 27 years. The issue
involved in the present matter is no longer res
integra and in similar set of facts, the Division
Bench of this Court has passed common order dated
18.04.2024 in Letters Patent Appeal No.908 of 2023
and allied matters, wherein, following observations
were made:
“8. It is not in dispute that the workmen were
working as a Watchman with effect from the year
1984 and the workmen had rendered services from
16 years to 20 years. Therefore the core
question for consideration in these appeals
would be whether lump sum compensation could
have been awarded instead of back-wages and
continuity to the families of the deceased
employees and further, if the order of lump sum
compensation was right then what would be
quantum of such lump sum compensation. While
deciding the core question, the time gap which
has intervened between the date of termination
and the date of granting relief of lump sum
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:48 IST 2026

C/SCA/10036/2026 (GJHC240346332026) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
compensation by the learned Single Judge has to
be seen. The workmen were terminated way back in
the year 1999 and the order of the learned
Single Judge was passed in the year 2018. In the
recent years, there is shift of paradigm by
granting lump sum compensation instead of back
wages and continuity. Even if there is breach of
Section 25F of the Act, it cannot necessarily
mean to automatically entail the relief of
reinstatement and back wages to the workmen.
Obviously in the present case, there would not
be a case of reinstatement as all the workmen
have passed away, but reinstatement not being
automatic, grant of lump sum compensation would
meet the ends of justice.
8.1. The shift in law on this count was
highlighted by the Supreme Court in Bhopal Vs.
Santosh Kumar Seal [(2010) 6 SCC 773] relying on
its own another decision in Jagbir Singh Vs.
Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board
[(2009) 15 SCC 327] , observing that the relief
of payment of lump-sum compensation could be a
proper relief in a given set of facts and
circumstances.
“In the last few years it has been
consistently held by this Court that relief
by way of reinstatement with back wages is
not automatic even if termination of an
employee is found to be illegal or is in
contravention of the prescribed procedure and
that monetary compensation in lieu of
reinstatement and back wages in cases of such
nature may be appropriate. (See U.P. State
Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey
[2006 (1) SCC 479], Uttaranchal Forest
Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi [2007 (9)
SCC 353], State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma
[2007 (1) SCC 575], M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban
[2007 (9) SCC 748], Sita Ram v. Moti Lal
Nehru Farmers Training Institute [2008 (5)
SCC 75], Jaipur Development Authority v.
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:48 IST 2026

C/SCA/10036/2026 (GJHC240346332026) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
Ramsahai [2006 (11) SCC 684], GDA v. Ashok
Kumar [2008 (4) SCC 261] and Mahboob Deepak
v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula [2008 (1) SCC
575].)”
8.2. In subsequent decision in Rajasthan
Development Corporation Vs.Gitam Singh [(2013) 5
SCC 136] , the Supreme Court stated,
“From the long line of cases indicated above,
it can be said without any fear of
contradiction that this Court has not held as
an absolute proposition that in cases of
wrongful dismissal, the dismissed employee is
entitled to reinstatement in all situations.
It has always been the view of this Court
that there could be circumstance(s) in a case
which may make it inexpedient to order
reinstatement. Therefore, the normal rule
that the dismissed employee is entitled to
reinstatement in cases of wrongful dismissal
has been held to be not without exception.
Insofar as wrongful termination of daily-
rated workers is concerned, this Court has
laid down that consequential relief would
depend on host of factors, namely, manner and
method of appointment, nature of employment
and length of service. Where the length of
engagement as daily wager has not been long,
award of reinstatement should not follow and
rather compensation should be directed to be
paid. A distinction has been drawn between a
daily wager and an employee holding the
regular post for the purposes of
consequential relief.”
8.3. In U ttaranchal Forest Development
Corporation Vs. M.C.Joshi [(2007) 9 SCC 353] ,
the Supreme Court held that the question of
grant of compensation in place of relief of
reinstatement could be guided by relevant
factors to be that whether the appointment was
made in accordance with the statutory Rules or
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:48 IST 2026

C/SCA/10036/2026 (GJHC240346332026) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
not.
8.4. It is to be observed that the decisions of
the Supreme Court have carved out the
circumstances and aspects which may guide the
discretion of the court in awarding lump-sum
compensation instead of granting relief of
reinstatement even if there is a breach of
Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
8.5. These factors were highlighted in Bantva
Municipality Vs. Amritlal Harji Chauhan being
Special Civil Application No.9135 of 2013
decided on 31.3.2014 as under :-
“(i) The fact that the workman is daily-rated
workmen, not permanently employed; (ii) He is
not holding a permanent post; (iii) Nature of
his employment; (iv) Span of service, viz.
The period during which he worked upto the
date of termination of services; (v) Manner
and method of appointment. Whether it was a
backdoor entry; (vi) The time gap from the
date of termination; (vii) Delay in raising
the Reference is also considered to be a
germane factor; (viii) Any special feature
peculiar to the facts of the particular case.
For instance, in Bhurumal (supra), the
Supreme Court noticed that post which the
workman held was of Lineman in the Telephone
Department, and that the work of Lineman was
drastically reduced in view of advancement of
the technology.”
8.6. In the case of BSNL v. Bhurumal, reported
in (2014) 7 SCC 177 , it was categorically
observed that even after reinstatement, it is
always open to the management to terminate the
services of that employee by paying him the
retrenchment compensation. Even as a daily-wage
worker, no useful purpose is going to be served
in reinstating such a workman and he can be
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:48 IST 2026

C/SCA/10036/2026 (GJHC240346332026) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
given monetary compensation by the Court itself.
9. Therefore, looking to the gap of date of
appointment, date of termination, the order
passed by the learned Single Judge is seen,
grant of lump sum compensation cannot be faulted
with.
10. Having come to the conclusion that the lump
sum compensation would be appropriate remedy for
the families of the deceased workmen, the other
aspects which comes for consideration is quantum
of lump sum compensation. Though learned
advocate Mr. Bhatt has contended that there was
delay in preferring the complaint and the
subsequent reference, it can be observed from
the pleadings that the averments with regard to
delay and laches in preferring the reference
were not made before the labour court as well as
the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the
argument of learned advocate Mr. Bhatt with
regard to delay and laches in preferring
reference cannot be countenanced and what needs
to be seen is that almost all the workmen have
put in 16-20 years of service for the respondent
and their services were terminated without
following due procedure of law. Therefore, the
families of the deceased workmen needs to be
compensated proportionally as to the number of
years of service put in by them. However, in
order to balance the equation, we have
considered to give effect of delay in preferring
the reference while enhancing the amount of
compensation. Thus, while calculating the number
of years of services, we proposed to deduct the
number of years service for which there is delay
in preferring reference. After deduction of such
number of service, we propose to give
compensation in the following tabular form:
Sr. No. Total No. of years for
lump sum compensation
Amount of lump sum
compensation
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:48 IST 2026

C/SCA/10036/2026 (GJHC240346332026) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
1. 5 to 10 years Rs.3.00 lacs
2. 10-15 years Rs.5.00 lacs
3. 15-20 years Rs.7.5 lacs
11. As the amount as awarded by the labour court
is already paid by the respondent such amount
shall be deducted from the total amount of
compensation as per the above mentioned chart.
To give effect of each and every appellants qua
amount of compensation, the chart is reproduced
herein-below.”
7. Thus, it transpires from the aforesaid
observations made by the Division Bench of this Court
that while calculating the number of years of
services, the Division Bench proposed to deduct the
number of years of service for which there was delay
in preferring reference e.g. if the total tenure of
service of a workman was 20 years and if he filed the
complaint/reference after delay of 1 year, then his
total number of years for getting lump sum
compensation should be 19 years. Here in the case on
hand, the petitioner has filed the reference after
six months from the date of his termination and
therefore having regard to the facts of the present
case and as learned AGP has not raised serious
objection regarding the submission canvassed by
learned advocate for the petitioner that petition may
be allowed in terms of the aforesaid order of the
Division Bench, without going into the merit of the
matter, the petition is required to be allowed in
terms of aforesaid order of the Division Bench. Now,
for the purpose of computing the amount of lump sum
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:48 IST 2026

C/SCA/10036/2026 (GJHC240346332026) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
compensation, the total length of service of the
petitioner i.e. 27 years is to be considered and if
the period of six months is to be deducted, then the
total number of years of service of the petitioner
for lump sum compensation would be 26 years and 6
months. Thus, as per the aforesaid tabular format,
petitioner is entitled to get the amount of lump sum
compensation of Rs.7.5 lakh.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, petition
stands partly allowed. The impugned judgment and
order passed by the learned Labour Court is hereby
quashed and set aside. The respondent No.1 is hereby
directed to pay an amount of Rs.7.5 lakh to the
petitioner as lump sum compensation within a period
of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order, failing which, there shall be interest @ 9%
per annum.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
LAVKUMAR J JANI
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:48 IST 2026