Gujarat High Court
Iron Build System Pvt Ltd vs Ashokbhai Nanjibhai Rohit on 7 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1535/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1535 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
IRON BUILD SYSTEM PVT LTD
Versus
ASHOKBHAI NANJIBHAI ROHIT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY(1060) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned labour court below Exh.9 in Miscellaneous Application No.1 of 2024 in Reference (LCA) No.24 of 2012 dated 09.10.2024 whereby, the application filed under Rule 26(A) of the Gujarat Industrial Disputes for restoration and condonation of delay of eight years and six months came to be rejected and also challenged the award passed by the learned labour court dated 06.04.2015 in Reference (LCA) No.24 of 2012 passed below Exh.16, whereby, the petitioner was directed to Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 10 22:43:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1535/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025 undefined reinstate the respondent with 20% back wages along with all consequential benefits.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay for the petitioner. 2.1. Learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay submits that learned labour court has committed error in not condoning the delay in filing the restoration application No.01 of 2024 as the notices which were issued in the main reference was served and received by the employees who retired long back from the company. Learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay submits that as the petitioner was not having the knowledge with regard to the pendency of the proceedings, petitioner did not appear and the award was passed ex-parte. Learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay submits that after the award passed, the respondent did not resume the duties on any occasion, neither made any efforts for the same. Learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay submits that though respondent was offered the employment through the communication dated 12.09.2023, 29.09.2023 and 21.10.2023, however, instead of resuming the duties, the respondent has filed the recovery application one after another. 2.2. Learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay submits that in Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 10 22:43:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1535/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025 undefined absence of knowledge, the delay was caused in filing the application for restoration, therefore, the prayer is made to allow this petition by granting the application for condonation of delay filed in restoration application No. 01 of 2024 and to restore the original reference and also prayed to issued direction to decide the reference on its merits. Learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay submits that in absence of any cogent evidence, the learned labour court has allowed the reference directing the present petitioner to reinstate the respondent, therefore also impugned order deserves to be set aside.
3. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate and considering the reasons assigned by the learned reference court, it is undisputed fact that (1) the present petitioner was represented in conciliation proceedings through authorized Officer; (2) the acknowledgment receipt produced below mark 12/1 suggests that the notice below Exh.2 is received by the present petitioner, thereafter, again notice was issued on 02.04.2014, directing the petitioner to file response to the statement of claim which is also served to the present petitioner; (3) award was passed in absence of Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 10 22:43:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1535/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025 undefined the present petitioner ex-parte on 06.04.2015 in reference application No. 24 of 2012; (4) The said award was published on the notice board and through the Bailiff, service of the impugned award was made on 28.05.2015; (5) Criminal case was filed being No.1588 of 2017 wherein, the petitioner appeared and has accepted the guilt, and penalty was imposed which is also paid by the petitioner. Despite the same, award was not implemented, therefore recovery application being no.7 of 2020 came to be filed wherein, the petitioner has represented through his advocate and the same was ordered in favour of the respondent-employee. 3.1. Challenging the order passed in Recovery Application no.7 of 2020, the petition came to be filed before this Court being SCA No.10708 of 2022 which is pending before this Court and no stay is granted by the court. Subsequently another recovery application came to be filed for the recovery of the dues for the period of 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2023 which was registered being recovery application No.41 of 2023 which was also allowed after hearing the parties including the learned advocate for the petitioner on 24.06.2024. Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 10 22:43:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1535/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025 undefined
4. From the above undisputed fact, it emerges that though the reference was awarded in favour of the respondent in the year 2014, after eleven years also the respondent could not reap the fruit of the above. The petitioner awakened one morning and filed the restoration application with delay condonation application of eight years and six months. In absence of any satisfactory reasons explaining the delay, the learned labour court thought it fit to dismiss the same on the ground that the petitioner was aware about the pendency of the proceedings, however, only with a view to deprive the benefits to the employees, not appeared before the learned reference court and though appeared in subsequent proceedings, not filed proceedings challenging the impugned award in time.
5. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment, hence this petition is dismissed.
6. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 10 22:43:22 IST 2025