The Gujarat High Court finds that reinstatement is not feasible after such an extended period, but the awarded compensation needs improvement. Therefore, the court enhances the compensation amount to Rs.1,50,000/- to ensure justice.

Case- Gordhanbhai Dhamabhai Patel vs Deputy Range Forest Officer
Decided on: 27th  June 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice Rajendra M. Sareen

The petitioner worked as Beat Guard in the respondent department from 1/1/1982, and his services came to be terminated orally on 1/12/1990 without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner workman has filed a petition challenging the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court in a reference case. The petitioner had been working with the respondent since 1982 but was terminated without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent did not appear before the Labour Court, and the case proceeded ex-parte. The Labour Court awarded the petitioner a lump sum compensation of Rs.20,001/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.


The petitioner’s advocate argues that the award is illegal, improper, and contrary to the Industrial Disputes Act and established legal principles. They contend that the termination was unlawful and, therefore, reinstatement should have been granted instead of just compensation. They also argue that the delay in filing the reference was due to the petitioner’s lack of knowledge about the law of limitation and that reinstatement should be allowed solely based on the hold. The advocate further points out that the respondent never claimed that the petitioner’s appointment was illegal, but the Labour Court denied reinstatement based on this.

On the other hand, the respondent’s advocate argues that the Labour Court rightly awarded compensation since the respondent did not defend the case properly and the judgment and award were passed ex-parte.

The court found that the petitioner’s services were terminated illegally, and there was a delay in filing the reference. While reinstatement cannot be granted after 18 years, considering the long time the case has been pending and the fact that the respondent did not challenge the award, the court decides to enhance the compensation from Rs.20,001/- to Rs.1,50,000/- to meet the ends of justice.

The court also refers to previous judgments by the Supreme Court, which state that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and that compensation may be appropriate in certain circumstances, such as when the employee has been out of work for a long time or when the employee’s services cannot be reinstated due to various reasons.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has over 20 years of experience in various sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Aadit Shah

Click here to view Judgement


The Delhi High Court Dismissed the petition of an Employee on claim to quash the show cause notice issued by the employer.

Title: Dr. Geeta Oberoi vs National Judicial Academy

Decided on: 30th June, 2023

+ W.P.(C) 8487/2023, CM APPL. 32341/2023, CM APPL. 32343/2023 CM APPL. 32342/2023



The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition of an ex-employee for setting aside the order of National Judicial Academy dated 22.05.23 and quashing of the show cause notice issued by the employer and renew the contract of service with release of all increments withheld and other consequential benefits that have been conferred on other similarly placed employees as the Petitioner.

Facts of the case

Dr. Oberoi was employed at National Judicial Academy, Bhopal since 2014 at the post of professor against a sanctioned post pursuant to an advertisement. The advertisement was issued on 11.06.2012 by the Respondent, inviting applications for filling up several vacancies on deputation or contract basis including the post of professor. The petitioner was appointed after following the open selection-cum-merit procedure. letter dated 10.04.2014, the petitioner was appointed as a professor for an initial period of 3 years. A contract of service was executed on 17.08.2014. Since there was no director officiating with the respondent, the petitioner vide letter dated 03.11.2014 was also given the responsibility of performing the duties of the Director of the National Judicial Academy till a new director was appointed.

On 01.02.2021, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner with regard to the petitioner’s role in obstructing the academy’s security personnel or other employees from taking steps for evicting stray dogs from the premises of the academy. The Executive Committee decided that the Petitioner should continue in service till appropriate decision on show cause notice is issued (The Hon’ble chairperson observed “She may be continued till further orders”). On 22.05.2023, the petitioner’s services were terminated pursuant to a resolution of the Executive Committee dated 13.05.2023. Hence the present petition.

Court Analysis & Decision

The court noted that in the current case, it is true that the petitioner was covered by the service contract as of the day the show cause notice was given; hence, the respondents were required to abide by the contract’s terms and conditions. The respondent issued the show cause notice due to claims that stray dogs were being fed on academy property, which was causing a disturbance. Since the petitioner was a contractual employee of the respondent on that date and both parties were subject to the terms and conditions of the contract, the Executive Committee members believed that the petitioner’s services should be continued until an appropriate decision is made regarding the show cause notice. The petitioner is not entitled to rely on the terms and conditions of the aforementioned contract since it ceased to exist on July 8, 2021 and was not renewed.

The decision of the executive committee was taken on 13.05.2023 & there was no contract of service subsisting between the petitioner and the respondent. And in accordance with the advertisement, the respondent was only interested in hiring professors on a temporary basis, which is why the petitioner was chosen. The petitioner at best could have had legitimate expectation to be considered for regular appointment against a sanctioned post provided her performance was outstanding but that’s not correct to be held on the present case and unlike in the case of K. Ragupathi v. State of U.P., (2022) 6 SCC 346 (on which the petitioner relied on) where the petitioner therein had “outstanding” Annual Performance Assessment Report, there is nothing on record to show the performance of the petitioner as outstanding in this case. Hence the arguments of the petitioner that her appointment is akin to a regular appointment and her reliance on K. Ragupathi (supra) is faulty. Further the termination of the petitioner is on account of expiry of the period of the contract of service, the same is neither stigmatic nor vindictive.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Shreyanshu Gupta

Click to review the judgement