Gujarat High Court Dismisses Appeals by Legal Heirs of Workman, Upholds CGIT Award of Rs. 30,000 Compensation for Illegal Retrenchment. Retrenchment of temporary workman without complying with Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 held illegal; lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement upheld.

High Court: Gujarat High Court

Admin

2026-05-18 22:27:02

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellants, legal heirs of Late Shri Harun H. Saiyad, filed Letters Patent Appeals against a common judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 23.02.2024 in Special Civil Application No.16708 of 2018 (filed by the respondent) and Special Civil Application No.18455 of 2018 (filed by the appellants). The appeals arose from the judgment and award dated 06.10.2017 in Reference (CGITA) No. 975 of 2004 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT), Ahmedabad. The workman was appointed on 17.10.1988 for a period from 17.10.1988 to 22.10.1988 as leave arrangement in place of a regular employee, Shri L.M. Joshi. He was thereafter continued as a stop-gap arrangement until 06.10.1990. After that date, the respondent did not call him for duty. The workman raised a dispute before the CGIT in 2004, which was registered as Reference (CGITA) No. 975 of 2004. The CGIT held that the retrenchment of the workman was illegal and awarded Rs. 30,000 as lump-sum compensation. Both parties challenged this award before the learned Single Judge, who dismissed both petitions. The appellants then filed the present Letters Patent Appeals. The Division Bench heard learned advocate Ms. Kajal L. Kalwani for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla for the respondent. The court admitted the appeals and, after hearing, dismissed them, upholding the CGIT award and the Single Judge's order. The court found no reason to interfere with the compensation amount of Rs. 30,000, noting that the workman had died and the employer was a government department.

Headnote

A) Industrial Law - Retrenchment - Illegal Retrenchment - Section 25F, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Workman appointed for leave arrangement from 17.10.1988 to 22.10.1988 but continued as stop-gap arrangement till 06.10.1990 - Thereafter not called for duty - Held that retrenchment without complying with Section 25F is illegal (Paras 4-5).

B) Industrial Law - Compensation - Lump-sum Compensation - Section 11A, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - CGIT awarded Rs. 30,000 as lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement - Workman died during proceedings - Held that compensation is just and proper, no interference warranted (Paras 5-7).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the retrenchment of the workman was illegal and what compensation is payable to the legal heirs.

Final Decision

Both Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed. The common judgment and order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.16708 of 2018 and Special Civil Application No.18455 of 2018 is confirmed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

Retrenchment of a workman without complying with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act
1947 is illegal
even if the workman was a temporary or stop-gap employee
lump-sum compensation can be awarded in lieu of reinstatement when the workman has died and the employer is a government department.

Case Details

2026:GUJHC:907-DB

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 749 of 2025 with R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 751 of 2025

2026-01-06

Bhargav D. Karia, L. S. Pirzada

2026:GUJHC:907-DB

Ms. Kajal L. Kalwani, Mr. Anand B. Gogia for appellants; Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla for respondent

Chandabu Wd/o Late Harun H. Saiyad & Ors.

Senior Post Master

Nature of Litigation

Letters Patent Appeals against common judgment of Single Judge in Special Civil Applications challenging CGIT award on retrenchment and compensation.

Remedy Sought

Appellants (legal heirs) sought higher compensation or reinstatement; respondent sought to set aside CGIT award.

Filing Reason

Workman was not called for duty after 06.10.1990; retrenchment without compliance with Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act.

Previous Decisions

CGIT awarded Rs. 30,000 lump-sum compensation for illegal retrenchment; Single Judge dismissed both petitions.

Issues

Whether the retrenchment of the workman was illegal. Whether the compensation of Rs. 30,000 awarded by CGIT is just and proper.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the compensation was inadequate and sought reinstatement or higher compensation. Respondent argued that the workman was a temporary employee and the award was excessive.

Ratio Decidendi

Retrenchment of a workman without complying with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal. In cases where the workman has died and the employer is a government department, lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement is appropriate. The amount of Rs. 30,000 awarded by CGIT is just and proper.

Judgment Excerpts

The CGIT by judgment and award dated 06.10.2017 held that the retrenchment of the workman was illegal and awarded Rs.30,000/- as lump-sum compensation. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and find no reason to interfere with the impugned common judgment and order.

Procedural History

Workman appointed 17.10.1988 for leave arrangement till 22.10.1988, continued as stop-gap till 06.10.1990, then not called for duty. Dispute raised in 2004 before CGIT (Reference No. 975 of 2004). CGIT awarded Rs. 30,000 on 06.10.2017. Both parties filed Special Civil Applications (16708/2018 by respondent, 18455/2018 by appellants). Learned Single Judge dismissed both on 23.02.2024. Appellants filed Letters Patent Appeals (749/2025 and 751/2025) which were dismissed on 06.01.2026.