Gujarat High Court
Subhash Bhikhubhai Gohil vs State Of Gujarat on 3 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8667/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8667 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
SUBHASH BHIKHUBHAI GOHIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS AGNEYA MANKAD AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 03/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed by the workman under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act [hereinafter be referred to as "the ID Act"] challenging the impugned award dated 25.02.2020 passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference Case (LCJ) No.110 of 2017 whereby the Labour Court has dismissed the said reference.
2. Short facts of the present case are that the petitioner Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 20:51:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8667/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined was working as daily wager with the respondent from 1.4.1998 to 31.03.2005. The petitioner was not issued any pay slip or attendance card. On 1.4.2005 his service came to be terminated illegally without there being any reason and without following due procedure. Therefore, the petitioner had filed the reference before the Labour Court being Reference (LCJ) No.110 of 2017 which came to be rejected by the labour Court vide order dated 25.2.2020.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
4. Heard Mr.Yogen Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Mankad, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent. Perused the material placed on record.
5. Mr.Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has also submitted that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is unjust, improper, illegal and contrary to the settled provisions of law, and therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside. He has also submitted that the labour Court has failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence of the petitioner in its true spirit. Though the petitioner, by way of affidavit, had specifically narrated all the facts as stated in the statement of claim and also reiterated the same during cross-examination, the Labour Court has ignored the petitioner's evidence and has solely relied upon the version of the respondents.
Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 20:51:55 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8667/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined 5.1 Mr. Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that from the findings recorded in the award, it clearly appears that the labour Court has considered only the evidence of the respondents and has not referred to or appreciated the evidence adduced by the petitioner. He has submitted that it has been the consistent case of the petitioner, both in the pleadings and in the oral deposition, that he continuously worked with the respondents for a period of more than 7 to 8 years; however, the learned Labour Court, without appreciating the factual and legal position, rejected the reference. He has submitted that the petitioner was never issued any identity card, pay slip or any written document by the respondents and therefore, being a labourer, he was unable to produce the same before the labour Court. He has also submitted that the observation of the labour Court regarding delay of 12 years and non-continuity after 2005 is also erroneous as the petitioner had in fact rendered continuous service and the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond his control. He has submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned award is unsustainable in the eye of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity and all consequential benefits.
6. On the other hand Ms, Trivedi, learned AGP for the respondent has submitted that the labour Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and award. She has submitted that reference was filed after period of 12 years and therefore, present petition may not be entertained and the same may be dismissed.
Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 20:51:55 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8667/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined
7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, it appears that the workman was illegally terminated from the services and, therefore, he has raised the industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and, then the same was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. It emerges from the record that the Labour Court has dismissed the reference. On perusal of the impugned award, it appears that the Labour Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned award. That after termination of the petitioner in 2005, the reasons best known to the petitioner, the reference was made in the year 2017 i.e. after almost 12 years and even during the pendency of the reference, the petitioner has not taken any proper care to produce relevant material on record before the Labour Court. Under such circumstances, it appears that after relying upon the decisions of this Court in the case of (1) Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation Vs. Arvindbhai Ravjibhai Naiya reported in 2024 LawSuit(Guj) 1142, (2) Dhulabhai Somabhai Damor Vs. Deputy Executive Engineer reported in 2024 LawSuit(Guj) 2368 and (3) Kamdar Hit Rakshak Union through President Vs. Deputy Director of Traffic Manager reported in 2024 LawSuit(Guj) 2842 and considering the relevant fact of the case, the Labour Court has rightly passed the impugned award. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director Sericulture Department and another reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1, has discussed with regard to the existence of the Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 20:51:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8667/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined industrial dispute for this long period and this long period without any explanation cannot be considered by the Court.
8. The relevant observations of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar (supra) reads as under:-
"An industrial dispute has to be referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication and the workman cannot approach the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal directly, except in those cases which are covered by Section 2A of the Act. Reference is made under Section 10 of the Act in those cases where the appropriate Government forms an opinion that 'any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended'. The words 'industrial dispute exists' are of paramount importance unless there is an existence of an industrial dispute (or the dispute is apprehended or it is apprehended such a dispute may arise in near future), no reference is to be made. Thus, existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute is a sine qua non for making the reference. No doubt, at the time of taking a decision whether a reference is to be made or not, the appropriate Government is not to go into the merits of the dispute. Making of reference is only an administrative function. At the same time, on the basis of material on record, satisfaction of the existence of the industrial dispute or the apprehension of an industrial dispute is necessary. Such existence/apprehension of industrial dispute, thus, becomes a condition precedent, though it will be only subjective satisfaction based on material on record. Since, we are not concerned with the satisfaction dealing with cases where there is apprehended industrial dispute, discussion that follows would confine to existence of an industrial dispute. Dispute or difference arises when one party make a demand and other party rejects the same. It is held by this Court in number of cases that before raising the industrial dispute making of demand is a necessary pre-condition. In such a scenario, if the services of a workman are terminated and he does not make the demand and/or raise the issue alleging wrongful termination immediately thereafter or within reasonable time and raises the same after considerable lapse of period, whether it can be said that industrial dispute still exist. Since there is no period of limitation, it gives right to the workman to raise the dispute even belatedly. However, if the dispute is raised after a long period, it has to be seen as to whether such a dispute still exists- Thus, notwithstanding the fact that law of limitation does not apply, it is to be shown by the workman that there is a dispute in praesenti. For this purpose, he has to demonstrate that even if considerable period has lapsed and there are laches and delays, such delay has not resulted into making the industrial dispute seized to exist. Therefore, if the Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 20:51:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8667/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined workman is able to give satisfactory explanation for these laches and delays and demonstrate that the circumstances discloses that issue is still alive, delay would not come in his way because of the reason that law of limitation has no application. On the other hand, if because of such delay dispute no longer remains alive and is to be treated as "dead", then it would be non-existent dispute which cannot be referred. Take, for example, a case where the workman issues notice after his termination, questioning the termination and demanding reinstatement. He is able to show that there were discussions from time to time and the parties were trying to sort out the matter amicably. Or he is able to show that there were assurances by the Management to the effect that he would be taken back in service and because of these reasons, he did not immediately raise the dispute by approaching the labour authorities seeking reference or did not invoke the remedy under Section 2A of the Act. In such a scenario, it can be treated that the dispute was live and existing as the workman never abandoned his right. However, in this very example, even if the notice of demand was sent but it did not evoke any positive response or there was specific rejection by the Management of his demand contained in the notice and thereafter he sleeps over the matter for number of years, it can be treated that he accepted the factum of his termination and rejection thereof by the Management and acquiesced into the said rejection. Take another example. A workman approaches the Civil Court by filing a suit against his termination which was pending for number of years and was ultimately dismissed on the ground that Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to enforce the contract of personal service and does not grant any reinstatement. At that stage, when the suit is dismissed or he withdraws that suit and then involves the machinery under the Act, it can lead to the conclusion that dispute is still alive as the workman had not accepted the termination but was agitating the same; albeit in a wrong forum. In contrast, in those cases where there was no agitation by the workman against his termination and the dispute is raised belatedly and the delay or laches remain unexplained, it would be presumed that he had waived his right or acquiesced into the act of termination and, therefore, at the time when the dispute is raised it had become stale and was not an 'existing dispute'. In such circumstances, the appropriate Government can refuse to make reference. In the alternative, the Labour Court/Industrial Court can also hold that there is no "industrial dispute" within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act and, therefore, no relief can be granted.
We may hasten to clarify that in those cases where the Court finds that dispute still existed, though raised belatedly, it is always permissible for the Court to take the aspect of delay into consideration and mould the relief. In such cases, it is still open for the Court to either grant reinstatement without back wages or lesser back wages or grant compensation instead of reinstatement. We are of the opinion that the law on this issue has to be applied in Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 20:51:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8667/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined the aforesaid perspective in such matters.
To summarise, although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act, yet it is for the 'appropriate Government' to consider whether it is expedient or not to make the reference. The words 'at any time' used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference and laws of limitation are not applicable to proceedings under the Act. However, the policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed inasmuch as unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay as, apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effect which it is likely to have on the employers' financial arrangement and to avoid dislocation of an industry.
On the application of the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, we are of the view that High Court correctly decided the issue holding that the reference at such a belated stage i.e. after fourteen years of termination without any justifiable explanation for delay, the appropriate Government had not jurisdiction or power to make reference of a non-existing dispute."
9. Considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar (supra) and the decisions of this Court in the aforesaid cases, no case is made out to entertain the present petition and the same being meritless deserves to be dismissed.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions, the petition stands dismissed. The impugned award passed by the Labour Court is hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 20:51:55 IST 2025