Gujarat High Court
Santram Ramsingh Yadav And Other ... vs Shri Manager, Khodal Corporation on 9 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9039/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9039 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9074 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9275 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9381 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9384 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
SANTRAM RAMSINGH YADAV AND OTHER EMPLOYEES THROUGH
UNION , SATYAVAN NADESAN ADISHWAR
Versus
SHRI MANAGER, KHODAL CORPORATION & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
SINGHI & CO(2725) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ARPIT P PATEL(5497) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 09/04/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates waive service of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 02:32:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9039/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined
2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, thereby challenging the order passed by the learned District Court, Surendranagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No.30 of 2021 dated 30.03.2022, in which the application preferred by the present petitioner for condonation of delay in filing claim under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is rejected.
3. It is case of the present petitioners that petitioners were employed by the respondent No.1 for construction of the station building, S&T structures, toilet blocks, platform walls, platform surfacing, covering sheds, earthwork in bank and cuttings for platforms, water supply arrangements, retaining walls at stations, construction of duty bunk at Lcs, dismantling of various existing structures and other incidental works between stations Khareshwar (Excl.) to Lilapur (incl.). It is further case of the present petitioners that after working for 5 years for 12 hours in a day with an over time of four hours, their services were orally discontinued without payment of wages for the preceding two months (in Special Civil Application No.9039 of 2022 9384 of 2022) and also preceding three months (in Special Civil Application Nos.9074 of 2022, 9275 of 2022 and 9381 of 2022) Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 02:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9039/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined before discontinuation. The application, under Section 152, was preferred for payment of wages on 13.11.2020 on behalf of the 20 - workmen along with an application for condonation of delay, the learned Authority has rejected the said condonation of delay application on 30.09.2021, against which appeal came to be preferred before learned District Court, Surendranagar on 29.10.2021, the said appeal also came to be rejected and therefore, present petition is filed.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Joshi for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Patel for the respondent No.1. Though, this Court has waited for learned advocate Mr. Shukla appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, however, in the second round also, learned advocate Mr. Shukla is absent.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi submits that on being terminated from the service on 21.02.2016, the worker has demanded the wages orally, however, the assurance was given by the principal employer as well as the contractor for payment of the wages, as thereafter, the petitioners have not been paid any wages, the application was filed under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi submits that as per the Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 02:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9039/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined limitation provided under the Act, the application has to be filed within a period of 12 months, which is completed on 21.02.2017, however, due to the assurance given by the respondent as well as Covid Pandemic, the same could not be filed till 13.11.2020. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi submits that against the exploitation of the workers, the enactment, under the Payment of Wages Act was made, therefore, instead of deciding the case on merits, the learned Authority has rejected the application for condonation of delay and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with and petition is required to be allowed.
6. As against the same, learned advocate Mr. Patel appearing for the respondent No.1 has submitted that without explaining the delay, the application was filed claiming the wages of 20 workers. Learned advocate Mr. Patel submits that under the statute, only if sufficient ground is made out then only the authority has to condone the delay and the claim has to be decided on merits. Learned advocate Mr. Patel submits that in absence of any cogent and sufficient reasons, no error has been committed by the learned Authority in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and therefore, this petition deserves to Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 02:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9039/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined be dismissed.
7. Having considered the arguments made by the learned advocates and the reasons assigned by the learned Authority, it emerges that as per the statement made by the respondent in the affidavit filed before this Court, It is undisputed fact that the workers were engaged by the respondent No.1 for construction of various works. As per the averments of the affidavit, the said work is completed on 19.11.2013, the petitioner raised the dispute that the payment of wages has not been made before the termination order is passed. It emerges from the record that the claim is made that without payment of wages for two preceding months of termination, the services were orally terminated, this Court is of the view that the enactment of payment of wages is made only with an object to raise the grievance against the exploitation of the workers and the explanation, which was offered in the application that despite various demands, no payment is made and the under false assurance, they had made to wait for 5 years. In addition to that, it is also stated that during the interregnum period, there was Covid Pandemic and that was also reason for not approaching to Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 02:32:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9039/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined the Court in time, this Court is of the view that the said explanation is sufficient and genuine explanation and therefore, instead of dismissing the claim on the technical ground, the learned Authority ought to have been decided the claim on merits.
8. Resultantly, this petition is allowed.
9. Learned Labour Court at Surendranagar is directed to decide the case on merits without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court in the order. It is needless to clarify that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case. All rights are kept open for both the parties which learned Labour Court shell decide in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 02:32:46 IST 2025